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.

One issue is structural, so to speak. The aerial of Hubbard St. depicts how much room there is between the streets in that part of the city [[fairly consistent with much of the city, if not deeper than the average backyard). So you are pretty much bound to have a low lot-coverage percentage. The issue becomes where to place the homes, and I think we'd agree that there's some upgrade to the street if the placement is close to the sidewalk. I agree with you that if the development shown on Hubbard St. doesn't really add density [[though there is still probably a small marginal bump in that the homes are attached and there are probably more units/acre then with a few single family homes on the same parcels). It is up to the developer to give constructive use to the unused part of the lot [[the Hubbard St. developer clearly came up short), their choice being backyards, parking, or a second structure positioned on a private late [[now that would increase density). Of course, this entire convo sets aside the possibility of a higher lot-coverage building, but perhaps rightfully so since that would likely require a zoning variance in much of the city.

Back to this Ferry-Chrysler development, when looking at the [[potentially outdated) site plan posted above and on Curbed, it's easy to mentally cut-and-paste the inward-positioned buildings right onto the unused/porous street frontage, thus maintaining the same overall density and creating enclosure. The developer can then do what they wish with the interior of the lot, either adding more units facing an alley-lane, or using it for a mix of parking and recreation. I think we can all agree that the immediate neighborhood [[in part thanks to this developer) already has more than ample street-fronted green space, just look at St. Antoine @ Ferry [[a wide open lawn in the shape of a suburban crescent) and the older development across E. Kirby, where the homes are behind lawns and parking. When you look around, it's as if the city doesn't have zoning laws.