Quote Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Animatedmartian, not sure why the Hubbard St. layout you shared is problematic. The parcel you show is simply underutilized. All of that rear space could include all of the following 1) covered parking, 2) either communal or private landscaped backyards), and 3) trees. The creation of enclosed space behind the buildings while simulatenously providing intimate public space in front of them is just so much wiser than this porous, awkward design on Ferry Street where there is awkward, sprawling green space in front of the building that bleeds directly into the center of lot, such that there is no truly private space, yet also no defined and surveilled public space. The buildings are just floating on wasted space.
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.