As block sizes shrink, are we allowing enough room for trees?
As block sizes shrink, are we allowing enough room for trees?
A mayor in Perth's south-eastern suburbs has raised concerns that developers are creating subdivisions without sufficient verge space to plant trees.
You're viewing a single thread.
That narrow street looks so awful: https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/e43976b189d514742d5ec4831a82a0ca?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=3456&cropW=5184&xPos=0&yPos=216&width=862&height=575
Imagine how hard that treeless hellscape must make Satterly.
They're sooOoo sOrRy
The important question I have is whether that actually is a street, or whether it's an alley/laneway in a case where two rows of homes have their backs to an alley to allow the actual street to be nicer and less impacted by cars.
There are a few actual streets like that in that suburb - I had a look to see if I could find the location of the photo and I think it's Ganges St.
Holy fuck.
OK this is fucking terrible. From that photo I was hoping it would be more like this development in Brisbane that someone on Reddit showed me a couple of years ago:
Front doors are on streets and seem to look pretty nice:
Understandably it's harder to find pics of the laneways at the back, but Google Streetview has some in a state that's good enough to get the idea despite still being under construction.
But a whole suburb where every street looks like that is just terrible. It's the worst way to increase density. Barely increasing it by any noteworthy amount, but making it an absolutely miserable environment to be in.
Make all those houses two storey while decreasing their width by about 30%. Then every house increases in floorspace by 40% while decreasing its footprint. Then they can fit more homes in the same area, and still have room left over to put in nice streetscaping.
Not even a footpath. Urban hell.
that looks like a trailer park without the grass