You're viewing a single thread.
Being the U.S, there's basically zero chance that it would be high-rises. Instead, there would be McMansions. Also a lot more parking lots
The McMansions are on the cliffs above. The high-rises are for the workers.
McMansions are for workers. That's how they got their name. Big like mansions, but built as cheap as possible so that they're (relatively) affordable.... Until they start falling apart in 15 years.
This looks like low-mid density. So much roads/wasted space and like 10 high rites do not make a high density neighborhood.
No, real estate moguls have learned that apartments and high-rise condos and hotels are more profitable than single family homes.
Sure, when zoning codes allow for them.
So you know, essentially never.
If they rezone a national park to residential it will definitely be highrise MDU.
Edit more space efficient for the NIMGC tree huggers
Why do you say that? We destroy plenty of nature and it almost always ends up single family home suburban sprawl.
Continuous grade of square footage is one factor, the suburb would have trouble with sprawl and boulder ingress
Yes, car centric suburbs have tons of problems but when has that ever stopped us? We build them in literal flood plains, and along cramped mudslide prone mountains. I’ve never heard of an empty piece of land in the middle of nowhere being zoned for high density residential in the US.
I figured the sides of the canyon would get in the way of profitability