Quote Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
The issue is that it's suburban either way. It's pretty much the suburban model to have greenspace or parking lots within a private development. In an urban environment, all the greenspace is at the neighborhood park and parking occupies the same footprints as the buildings, is on the street, and/or is at a nearby parking garage [[ideally a good percentage of residents should be using transit). This allows for more density within a single development and doesn't waste any space.

With the current design, in both the property on Hubbard and the one on the front of this thread, there's a pseudo-street wall but no more real density than you would get if they were all singe-family homes.
I wouldn't consider the Kirby/Ferry development to be suburban. The scale, massing, and building type is consistent with the existing historic structures along that section of Ferry and Kirby. It is also much more dense than single-family homes would be. This development is not on a very large amount of land. The street frontage of this collection of property is only wide enough for about 8 narrow Corktown-style houses on each side. Even if they were all built as duplexes, that would still only net 32 units, compared to the 58 units that are actually contained in this development.

I do agree with all of the criticism of the weird courtyard/gazebo thing on the Ferry side of the development, and would much prefer it if the two inward facing buildings were turned outward to face the street [[like the rest of the buildings in the development), but other than that, the layout isn't too bad. The fact that this development puts all of the parking access in the alley, and also maintains the same setback as the existing historic structures [[save for the weird courtyard/gazebo thing) is a strong positive.