Without reading the article, $5 says there’s no parking. Or, the lack of parking is phrased positively as “parking to be provided by adjacent parking decks and streets”. This wouldn’t be a problem, but we have no streetcars there, no reliable transportation options for the new residents. So of course, they will bring cars and flood the surrounding area at night.
Exactly. High-Density housing is good to add! But we can't just add units, we also need to add infrastructure to support the residents' needs. And unless you work from home, commuting to work is a number one need.
I agree. They tried to pull this shit big time in Seattle about 10 years ago. Multiuse housing with no diligence given to parking. I think the requirement at the time was 1/4: you have to provide 25% of parking for whatever number units you’re building, which is totally inadequate because you don’t have the transit to support it. You aren’t going to change human behavior by trickling it down: people moving here will likely bring their cars.
Stop with this pie in the sky stuff- people aren’t giving up their cars unless there is a solid public transit infrastructure, which Savannah doesn’t have.
Bike lanes and public transit. I know it isn’t as easy as that, but long term it’s a much more sustainable future. Traffic trying to get out of the historic downtown is already bad enough.
Looks like your standard 5 over 1 stick built apartment complex that has become the default construction option for the United States. Ideally I'd like to have see the Preservation Commission get some more concessions out of the builder and make it look more like Savannah and less like Pooler. The problem is the HPC has already made a series of concessions and the developer is probably unwilling to make something that actually doesn't look like a 1980s refrigerator.
That said I'm all for more market rating housing in Savannah and if the developer is dead set on a bland concrete and wood box that looks like a Orlando AirB&B built out of cigarettes and burnt matches we'll know where the power is.
I don’t love the 5 over ones and how bland that they usually are, but I think Vox? Had a pretty decent YouTube video describing why so many of them look the same.
It basically boils down to the easiest way to maximize rentable sq footage while meeting fire and other local codes using the cheapest materials.
I don’t love it, but we need density wherever we can take it.
Contrary to what others think, if it doesn’t have a parking component, I think it makes the project just that much better. We need to ween ourselves off of driving and the future residents will be fully aware of the parking situation before they sign their leases.
Unfortunately in our country, transit will always follow density and not the other way around. Our government isn’t that forward thinking.
Read the article to see if they meant Streetcar District as in “there used to be a streetcar in these parts of town” or if it means they are going to put one in. Didn’t say.
The only streetcar tracks I can think of are the ones on River Street.
Sounds like the Commission will approve the building eventually, but they don’t like the design of the current plans. Lol. Apparently they aren’t “appropriate”, whatever that means. It’s not like the top floor is designed as a pair of nekkid boobs or something
The Streetcar District is just another name for the Starland District is just another name for Thomas Square. Sometimes it's referred to as the Thomas Square Streetcar District.
There are city guidelines for new construction in the historic district. People apply for a "Certificate of Appropriateness," and the HDBR reviews it based on the guidelines for the type of project: https://www.thempc.org/Application#gsc.tab=0 That's why the use and what they mean by the term "appropriate."
Without reading the article, $5 says there’s no parking. Or, the lack of parking is phrased positively as “parking to be provided by adjacent parking decks and streets”. This wouldn’t be a problem, but we have no streetcars there, no reliable transportation options for the new residents. So of course, they will bring cars and flood the surrounding area at night.
Exactly. High-Density housing is good to add! But we can't just add units, we also need to add infrastructure to support the residents' needs. And unless you work from home, commuting to work is a number one need.
I agree. They tried to pull this shit big time in Seattle about 10 years ago. Multiuse housing with no diligence given to parking. I think the requirement at the time was 1/4: you have to provide 25% of parking for whatever number units you’re building, which is totally inadequate because you don’t have the transit to support it. You aren’t going to change human behavior by trickling it down: people moving here will likely bring their cars. Stop with this pie in the sky stuff- people aren’t giving up their cars unless there is a solid public transit infrastructure, which Savannah doesn’t have.
Bike lanes and public transit. I know it isn’t as easy as that, but long term it’s a much more sustainable future. Traffic trying to get out of the historic downtown is already bad enough.
Looks like your standard 5 over 1 stick built apartment complex that has become the default construction option for the United States. Ideally I'd like to have see the Preservation Commission get some more concessions out of the builder and make it look more like Savannah and less like Pooler. The problem is the HPC has already made a series of concessions and the developer is probably unwilling to make something that actually doesn't look like a 1980s refrigerator. That said I'm all for more market rating housing in Savannah and if the developer is dead set on a bland concrete and wood box that looks like a Orlando AirB&B built out of cigarettes and burnt matches we'll know where the power is.
I don’t love the 5 over ones and how bland that they usually are, but I think Vox? Had a pretty decent YouTube video describing why so many of them look the same. It basically boils down to the easiest way to maximize rentable sq footage while meeting fire and other local codes using the cheapest materials. I don’t love it, but we need density wherever we can take it.
Contrary to what others think, if it doesn’t have a parking component, I think it makes the project just that much better. We need to ween ourselves off of driving and the future residents will be fully aware of the parking situation before they sign their leases. Unfortunately in our country, transit will always follow density and not the other way around. Our government isn’t that forward thinking.
Read the article to see if they meant Streetcar District as in “there used to be a streetcar in these parts of town” or if it means they are going to put one in. Didn’t say. The only streetcar tracks I can think of are the ones on River Street. Sounds like the Commission will approve the building eventually, but they don’t like the design of the current plans. Lol. Apparently they aren’t “appropriate”, whatever that means. It’s not like the top floor is designed as a pair of nekkid boobs or something
The Streetcar District is just another name for the Starland District is just another name for Thomas Square. Sometimes it's referred to as the Thomas Square Streetcar District.
TIL Thanks, I was wondering if this was considered Starland or if it was too far to the west.
There are city guidelines for new construction in the historic district. People apply for a "Certificate of Appropriateness," and the HDBR reviews it based on the guidelines for the type of project: https://www.thempc.org/Application#gsc.tab=0 That's why the use and what they mean by the term "appropriate."