Jeez, well, there are SO GODDAMN MANY parking lots, I think that we could have a little bit of everything: housing, gardens, small businesses, parks, nature, et cetera. My answer is, then, "whatever the local community currently lacks."
This is what land use planning is in /c/reclamation@slrpnk.net is about. Consultation ins an integral part of deciding what to do with a development after it's finished. Not all land uses necessarily need to support wildlife habitat or ecosystem redevelopment.
Oak, burch and hazel groves. No other reason than those are my favourite trees.
Excellent taste in trees, good sir/lady
I never understood the huge parking lots in the malls near where I grew up. I always thought "why not put in a garage?" It would use a 1/4 of the ground space and keep the same amount of parking and would leave room for more stores. But I like the idea of wildlife sanctuaries/parks replacing parking lots more than stores.
Parking garages are expensive compared to lots.
The mall probably also is in bumfuck nowhwre, meaning Therese bear unlimited space for other shops and their own parking lots
I’d rather delete them than replace them. Move everything closer together again. But you can’t reverse time, so homes and parks are probably the best options. Businesses, museums… schools if feasible.
God I would love to see a network of tiny walkable neighborhoods connected by reliable public transit in place of the fields of asphalt we have now
I saw a video about a development in Tempe, Arizona, along the Phoenix LRT that claims to be the first planned car-free development in America. It has narrow, winding pedestrian streets between buildings, zero parking, and buildings built in a more desert vernacular style. I'd love to see more things like that.
There's also the superblock concept, as best exemplified by Barcelona, which sounds very similar to what you're describing.
Commie blocks are pretty good, actually
Why superblocks are peak urbanism
from Adam Something on youtube
Tom Scott also had a great video earlier this week about the town of Zermatt, Switzerland that has banned all cars except tiny electric cars, and even those are only allowed for special cases like minibuses and deliveries. I really think we could build a city without cars, and just have dense commieblocks, superblocks, or missing middle housing everywhere, with trams and cargo trams on like every street.
Isn't New Haven, Connecticut the first planned walkable city in America?
I assume this based on: it was the first planned city and I doubt they planned for cars 400 years before their existence.
Paradise. Put it back where it was.
24/7 cybergoth raves
Wind or solar farms if practical.
Solar farms and skateparks
In the middle of the neighborhood? Can you imagine having to walk to the grocery store across a solar farm? Or having the noise of a wind turbine next to your local cafe?
If something needs to be there, I would choose parks or community gardens.
I can imagine walking under a solar farm, for shade and protection from rain.
Beats walking through an open paved lot for sure!
Pretty much anything else really - trees, gardens, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, markets, plazas, housing, business space. Hell - even just an overgrown vacant lot would be better than a parking lot.
Yeah, at least an overgrown vacant lot isn't an impervious surface that will contribute to flooding and urban heat island effect. Plants and soil are far better than asphalt and concrete.
The ones in regions of suburban sprawl should be torn up and given back to the Earth. Those in more urban areas should be redeveloped into a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential spaces.
While that is an enviable end goal, it's not as simple as 'giving it back to nature'. I realize you're probably aware you've oversimplified that statement, but here are somethings that need to be considered to return the land to nature:
Again, I'm not trying to tee off on you, here, but I think a lot of people oversimplify reclamation. It is so, so much easier to conserve rather than reclaim.
Yes, I was being simple and romantic my lemon. But I'll engage.
do people even want this reclaimed? You’re going to have a shit load of stake holders that all have diffent visions for the land in question What was the pre-disturbance ecosystem?
Yes, I do. OP asked what I would do and my answer is tear up/redevelop based on proximity to urban centers.
Do you have a plan to unify this patch of land with other ecosystems like it?
No. We're going to have a new ecosystem comprised of scarred earth that will suffer from erosion for a decade or so before vegetation takes hold.
There is no topsoil, so what are you going to use for a growth media? Usually it’s organic amendments mixed with the subsoil.
There won't be topsoil until naturally deposited organic matter decomposes and mixes with minerals at the site. This could take awhile.
how much will it cost to amend the subsoil with organic amendments (in lieu of topsoil) and where will you get it from?
Not applicable. We're doing acclerated erosion until natural depostion and decomposition of organic matter can bring vegetation to the site.
what are the application rates of the amendments that ensure plant growth? " parking lots are compacted, so you’ll have to get equipment to decompact it. This will require a minimum of two passes with a dozer ripping to 50-100 cm in depth What planting or seeding rates are you going to use?
Not applicable...
how will you manage weed ingess? Spraying is relatively easy but it’s expensive. Manual pulling sucks
Weeds will be watered when it rains. They will help control site erosion.
how will you know when your reclamation and revgetation efforts are successful?
When clover and dandelions spring up in April and bees forage them.
That was fun, thank you for asking.
The best time to tear up a parking lot is 10 years ago.
The second best time is today.
Parks. With pedestrian infrastructure and free public restrooms.
Flea markets?
Cat parks? (is that even a thing?)
A sea of cat cafes.
If it were up to me? I'd talk to local ecologists/climate scientists along with the local community who would be exposed to and/or utilizing that space and see what they felt was best for their area.
People would replace them with new buildings, one way or the other
If this is a blue-sky scenario, I'm going with: space dedicated to growing food or producing power (like with solar pv between rows of crops that need some shade). This will call for minimal pathways to access some of the spaces, probably also water lines for irrigation, plus strategically placed keystone trees like oak and some fruit-producers as well
Agrivoltaics and multistrata agroforestry are super cool. I know this sub is primarily about sustainable urbanism, but I love me some sustainable pastoralism as well. I want a world with denser cities so we can make way for more nature and sustainable agriculture instead of endless sterile suburbs.
Edible Gardens
Gorgeous opulent tombs full of the ruling class, that everyone can enjoy for hundreds of years.
Parks and sports areas covered with solar panels if in one of the hotter places. Maybe event areas for concerts, markets, whatevahs
Parks, urban forests, community gardens, libraries, local shops, communal spaces, HOUSES.
Really cool stores, parks, things like that.
I currently live in a place that doesn't have that many people parking, yet we still have a bajillion parking spaces. They tear down a perfectly good building and build a parking space, then proceed to make it seem like some great thing for the community when in reality it will be used by no one but drug dealers (in cars)
If you're in the US or Canada (or maybe some other places as well), that's likely a result if parking minimums. Climate Town has a really good and comprehensive video on them here. Essentially, the developers are legally required to build a certain minimum number of spots, based on the use of the building and the floor space. But these numbers are completely arbitrary, based on pseudoscience, and based on expectated max (as opposed to typical) usage. Buildings that existed before the laws were enacted in the mid 1900s were grandfathered in, but any substantial renovations or new developments require the developers to acquire neighboring properties and demolish them to satisfy the mandatory parking minimums.
The whole thing is truly insane and results in so much needless waste.
Makes sense, though in my case a lot of these parking lots are straight up built in the middle of nowhere, knowing that they serve no purpose.
Some are just way oversized as well, for instance, the capacity of grocery store parking lots far exceed the maximum number of inhabitants even if you have a single person per car. Absolutely insane.
A lot of empty lots in Denver get absolutely filled with prairie dogs already. They're cute but also reproduce like mad with no natural predators in suburbia. We need more ferrets to eat them, they're even more cute imo.
Honestly, I'm okay with parking lots if we can do away with street parking.
Once there were parking lots, now it’s a peaceful oasis. https://youtu.be/tIvc-1J5Qmc
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
