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