I spend perhaps too much of my time daydreaming about addressing problems that have been written off as "too expensive" or "too complicated", since often the proposed solutions require massive...
I spend perhaps too much of my time daydreaming about addressing problems that have been written off as "too expensive" or "too complicated", since often the proposed solutions require massive reforms or obscene capital investiture, both of which tend to stoke conflict as -- imo -- they are seen as zero sum (e.g. both of our preferred economic systems cannot coexist, your project takes resources that mine would need, etc.). Once in a while, though, approaching stubborn problems from a new angle yields novel solutions.
Placing temporary modular refuges in parking lots is old hat, but I hadn't seen anything which retained the car parking beneath it before. Often, developers hold onto parking lots since they expect the land to appreciate, and are waiting for the economic situation to improve until they can sell it -- and in the meantime, the parking lot covers its own taxes. Otherwise, there's a minimum parking requirement for a building (e.g. a shopping centre or grocery store), and it's more economical for the owners to pave their lot and build a single storey.
Doing something like this seems like a clear win/win/win: land owners retain easy reselling of their land (plus the existing revenue from parking), the city gets more tax revenue (or benefits from provincial/federal housing initiatives), and the citizens get more usable space (commercial, living, community, etc.). You'd still want to ensure that the appropriate supports are in place, but the general concept seems robust and replicable.
Agreed! But while we sort out the culture war that's developed around motornormativity, and start on the generation-scale task of rebuilding our infrastructure + reclaiming land allocated to car...
Agreed! But while we sort out the culture war that's developed around motornormativity, and start on the generation-scale task of rebuilding our infrastructure + reclaiming land allocated to car storage, hundreds of people in my local city die every year from homelessness. I can understand the desire for a perfect solution, and that it hurts to see compromise, but I'm unwilling to watch other people die for my cause.
Demountable/temporary housing units that're designed to maintain parking below them are not a generational investment (they can be trivially moved, and if designed properly, broken down and recycled), don't require overhauling social norms and economic policies, and seem to be a net positive to every involved party. There are absolutely ways for the global average result to be improved -- e.g. tearing out the parking and installing an apartment tower, for instance -- but we've been deadlocked on that for decades, and people are dying in the meantime.
As someone half a world away in a region known for its earthquakes, my first impression was that these were designed to pancake as soon as the first bad quake hits. But the UK is probably fine? I...
As someone half a world away in a region known for its earthquakes, my first impression was that these were designed to pancake as soon as the first bad quake hits. But the UK is probably fine? I suppose homes on stilts range from entirely necessary to entirely deathtraps depending on the particular flavor of disasters your region gets.
Irrelevant disasters aside, I'm always glad to see options for increasing housing density. It's not as robust as replacing a parking lot with a larger building with internal parking, but it's a lot faster.
Ironically, In los Angeles these types of buildings are really common, we call them dingbats . Some of them did pancake in the 94 earthquake. There's a photo in the wiki. Properly engineered I'm...
Ironically, In los Angeles these types of buildings are really common, we call them dingbats .
Some of them did pancake in the 94 earthquake. There's a photo in the wiki.
Properly engineered I'm sure they can be fine though. The steel beams on this project look a lot more sturdy than the wood ones on most of the LA dingbats.
Mmhm, same! Plus, they'd be more challenged with respect to wind loading. But it's absolutely possible to engineer these structures so that they don't fall over in an earthquake; you just design...
[earthquakes]
Mmhm, same! Plus, they'd be more challenged with respect to wind loading. But it's absolutely possible to engineer these structures so that they don't fall over in an earthquake; you just design the moment connection between the supports and the building's floor diaphragm accordingly (plus adding hold downs via e.g. ground screws at the bearing points). I can't say with certainty whether it'd be cost effective enough to do so, but I feel like it should be, given that -- if you squint -- a parking stall could look like a garage (and those are addressable with wooden portal frames).
It's not as robust as replacing a parking lot with a larger building with internal parking, but it's a lot faster.
Mmhm, agreed. I think, more to my sister comment, it also feels like it'd involve fewer headaches, as it's in the best interest of every involved party. Forcing a the repurposing of a lot can be difficult since it typically involves a lot of sticks (rezoning + land value taxation, vacant property taxes, municipal buyouts, etc.), whereas I feel like a bunch of rational people sitting in a room could agree to some form of demountable housing (similar but distinct to the linked example) with very little needed in the way of incentivization. There's often no shortage of parking lots around cities -- especially in North America -- so relocating should be easy enough if it comes to it.
The UK doesn't get earthquakes. I think a magnitude 4 or 5 made the news a decade ago but that's about it. Wind loading is probably more of a thing but it doesn't get major hurricanes very often...
The UK doesn't get earthquakes. I think a magnitude 4 or 5 made the news a decade ago but that's about it. Wind loading is probably more of a thing but it doesn't get major hurricanes very often either it's mostly strong storms from the tail end of north Atlantic hurricanes. There isn't as much parking available as North America however especially in the south where land is more expensive.
Understood! However, I'm from the Canadian west coast, where we're overdue for an absurdly powerful earthquake, and I was linking this design with the subtext that I think it'd be extremely...
Understood! However, I'm from the Canadian west coast, where we're overdue for an absurdly powerful earthquake, and I was linking this design with the subtext that I think it'd be extremely practical for typical North American cities where paved lots such as these often occupy valuable space (e.g. directly in front of a grocery store/shopping centre).
I spend perhaps too much of my time daydreaming about addressing problems that have been written off as "too expensive" or "too complicated", since often the proposed solutions require massive reforms or obscene capital investiture, both of which tend to stoke conflict as -- imo -- they are seen as zero sum (e.g. both of our preferred economic systems cannot coexist, your project takes resources that mine would need, etc.). Once in a while, though, approaching stubborn problems from a new angle yields novel solutions.
Placing temporary modular refuges in parking lots is old hat, but I hadn't seen anything which retained the car parking beneath it before. Often, developers hold onto parking lots since they expect the land to appreciate, and are waiting for the economic situation to improve until they can sell it -- and in the meantime, the parking lot covers its own taxes. Otherwise, there's a minimum parking requirement for a building (e.g. a shopping centre or grocery store), and it's more economical for the owners to pave their lot and build a single storey.
Doing something like this seems like a clear win/win/win: land owners retain easy reselling of their land (plus the existing revenue from parking), the city gets more tax revenue (or benefits from provincial/federal housing initiatives), and the citizens get more usable space (commercial, living, community, etc.). You'd still want to ensure that the appropriate supports are in place, but the general concept seems robust and replicable.
As a Bristol person, I'm both tickled to see this news here on Tildes, and glad to see it at all 🚀
Ah, the length we go to, trying not to reconsider our society's morbid car dependency...
Agreed! But while we sort out the culture war that's developed around motornormativity, and start on the generation-scale task of rebuilding our infrastructure + reclaiming land allocated to car storage, hundreds of people in my local city die every year from homelessness. I can understand the desire for a perfect solution, and that it hurts to see compromise, but I'm unwilling to watch other people die for my cause.
Demountable/temporary housing units that're designed to maintain parking below them are not a generational investment (they can be trivially moved, and if designed properly, broken down and recycled), don't require overhauling social norms and economic policies, and seem to be a net positive to every involved party. There are absolutely ways for the global average result to be improved -- e.g. tearing out the parking and installing an apartment tower, for instance -- but we've been deadlocked on that for decades, and people are dying in the meantime.
Oh yes absolutely!
As someone half a world away in a region known for its earthquakes, my first impression was that these were designed to pancake as soon as the first bad quake hits. But the UK is probably fine? I suppose homes on stilts range from entirely necessary to entirely deathtraps depending on the particular flavor of disasters your region gets.
Irrelevant disasters aside, I'm always glad to see options for increasing housing density. It's not as robust as replacing a parking lot with a larger building with internal parking, but it's a lot faster.
Ironically, In los Angeles these types of buildings are really common, we call them dingbats .
Some of them did pancake in the 94 earthquake. There's a photo in the wiki.
Properly engineered I'm sure they can be fine though. The steel beams on this project look a lot more sturdy than the wood ones on most of the LA dingbats.
Mmhm, same! Plus, they'd be more challenged with respect to wind loading. But it's absolutely possible to engineer these structures so that they don't fall over in an earthquake; you just design the moment connection between the supports and the building's floor diaphragm accordingly (plus adding hold downs via e.g. ground screws at the bearing points). I can't say with certainty whether it'd be cost effective enough to do so, but I feel like it should be, given that -- if you squint -- a parking stall could look like a garage (and those are addressable with wooden portal frames).
Mmhm, agreed. I think, more to my sister comment, it also feels like it'd involve fewer headaches, as it's in the best interest of every involved party. Forcing a the repurposing of a lot can be difficult since it typically involves a lot of sticks (rezoning + land value taxation, vacant property taxes, municipal buyouts, etc.), whereas I feel like a bunch of rational people sitting in a room could agree to some form of demountable housing (similar but distinct to the linked example) with very little needed in the way of incentivization. There's often no shortage of parking lots around cities -- especially in North America -- so relocating should be easy enough if it comes to it.
The UK doesn't get earthquakes. I think a magnitude 4 or 5 made the news a decade ago but that's about it. Wind loading is probably more of a thing but it doesn't get major hurricanes very often either it's mostly strong storms from the tail end of north Atlantic hurricanes. There isn't as much parking available as North America however especially in the south where land is more expensive.
Understood! However, I'm from the Canadian west coast, where we're overdue for an absurdly powerful earthquake, and I was linking this design with the subtext that I think it'd be extremely practical for typical North American cities where paved lots such as these often occupy valuable space (e.g. directly in front of a grocery store/shopping centre).