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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.