Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SaveFailsafe t1_j2bz9ip wrote

Reply to comment by ltong1009 in Hampden Bookbindery by ltong1009

Drive down Pacific and tell me honestly you think that poor road can handle more traffic.

I'm not saying they can't build, I just think the development needs to include a plan for the affect on the whole neighborhood, not just the plot of land itself. I.e., fix Pacific and Chestnut and find a better way to let people exit Singer onto Keswick.

Chestnut and Crittenton in particular are 2-way streets but only wide enough for 1 car at a time. It works right now because hardly anybody comes back here. It won't work if the population of these 2 square blocks triples. There needs to be a plan. It won't just magically work out.

Whats happening is that the idiot NIMBYers are mucking up the discourse and everyone is dismissing the concerns wholesale because "oh its more NIMBYS, whatever" but there are a few actual relevant concerns that need to be addressed and aren't "waaah don't build here"

7

todareistobmore t1_j2emwdm wrote

> I'm not saying they can't build, I just think the development needs to include a plan for the affect on the whole neighborhood, not just the plot of land itself. I.e., fix Pacific and Chestnut and find a better way to let people exit Singer onto Keswick.

Singer to Keswick is an egress plan that should never have been allowed. Point Elm north, 33rd east and 32nd/Singer west and you've more than halfway solved the roads problem in that neighborhood, but it's not anything the developer can do.

FWIW, Chestnut is marked one-way south of 33rd, and Crittenton should probably be marked one-way north. But both of those roads are obvious instances where local residents are prioritizing parking over vehicle throughput, which is neither something an incoming developer can do anything about or anything that should be held against this project.

3

bmore t1_j2cfnzq wrote

If people are so worried about the car traffic they should advocate for a building with fewer or zero parking spaces and RPP that isn't eligible for building residents. But they won't do that because if anything they actually want more cars and parking and the traffic concerns are a red herring.

−2

The_Waxies_Dargle t1_j2dh82p wrote

How wonderfully dismissive of you. Your comment talks right past everything failsafe pointed out, even the part where they more or less agreed with you.

3

bmore t1_j2dmc5a wrote

It wasn't a critique of their comment at all, but a critique of the opponents who are simultaneously demanding more parking in the project and complaining about potential traffic. You can't have it both ways. I upvoted failsafe.

3

todareistobmore t1_j2eq4tx wrote

I think the parking/traffic concerns are separate, fwiw, but one problem with the traffic argument is nobody making it supports anything that would increase vehicle throughput.

3