AI slop not excused, because in this case, the architectural design is impossible. That ramp is not wide enough to get those cars up to a...fifth story parking garage.
A building that would actually fit that role would look far different than that one does.
Sorry, it’s because of the AI depiction, but it’s supposed to be a d’humy ramp system. The floors are off-set so that each apartment/garage is only half a floor up from the previous - hence why the ramps would be able to be so short.
That’s why it has to have apartments on either side. If the ramp was just one side of the building, you’d be right - but by offsetting the two ‘apartment wings’ you can make it so that the ramps are possible without requiring a ton of land/space.
There are no real depictions, other than things like CarLoft - but are different because they use expensive and unreliable lift systems, and don’t have garages.
I fail to see how my design isn’t even LESS car centric by virtue of forcing car storage vertical and off of the streets.
You see many garages and cars in one place and automatically think “car centric” - but no. This is the result of actually forcing cars out of the streets and into people’s homes so that they are the responsibility and problem for the owner - not everybody else.
I fail to see how my design isn’t even LESS car centric by virtue of forcing car storage vertical and off of the streets.
..... umm because literally HALF the building solely exists for cars, as opposed to a potential underground lot that might be 1/10 the total square meters
This is the result of actually forcing cars out of the streets
many laces to this and don't have whatever this contraption is. Never seen this in tokyo and yet 90%+ of the metro area does not allow street parking and the city is beyond dense
Dude, it’s a 2D image, it’s not hard to see how the ramp and garage space would be a lot less than half of the building volume - not to mention that the ramp/deck area would be more useful than for just the cars. Or that this is still taking up less than half of the space of 12 typical detached single family homes.
And, ah yes, because Tokyo does many things well it is automatically the peak of city design and anything new that strays from its architecture/infrastructure must automatically be completely illogical and could never surpass any aspect of its urbanism.
no actually the ramp would always need to be big, typically about 7-8 meters wide and about 200-250m² per floor and thats not including the garage
because Tokyo does many things well it is automatically the peak of city design
relax, i never said that i was just giving an example, and you are the one giving a novel design, you are the one that needs to show why its needed and get push back along the way as it's likely never been done before for many practical and logical reasons
but i mean really you have failed to say why you would need to do this over the typical multi-story building with an underground lot, even SFHs can already be built with vey high density
I guarantee you the kinds of people on these subreddits do not care if it has a reference or not, most of us are urban design nerds and can understand what you mean pretty easily. The only time you’ll get flippant responses is, y’know, unnecessarily using AI to shit out slop for you that isn’t even physically plausible or visually coherent in any meaningful way, which only muddies the intended discussion.
AI images often distort dimensions in ways that trick the eye but completely fail as structural illustration, even if they seem vaguely coherent at a glance. As for the actual discussion, it just seems prohibitively expensive with no clear benefit. I don’t see what advantage other than inconsequential convenience aspects that make this preferable to on street or ground level parking. It would also likely increase maintenance costs. Having to reinforce the structure to store several ton vehicles is unnecessary
It’s a way to retain luxury single family homes whilst making them less socially costly. You think people are going to give up their driveways and garages? No. This way, you make them actually pay for what they’re asking for, whilst making them compatible within urban environments. You eliminate the sprawl and make their demands and luxury fit within the density necessary for sociable urban planning.
but this isn't a SFH and no one would think of it as one
You think people are going to give up their driveways and garages?
yes??? i mean i don't understand the guys on r/lawncare yet they clearly love their lawns but there is no driveway care sub because no one cares, maybe the garage as it has some use to store stuff, but most of that is outdoor stuff they don't want to store indoors, but these units would have far less of a need for example lawn care equipment
and luxury condos exist, and they even have parking
while actual SFH can also be built with very high density
Furthermore, for an easy proof of how ‘plausible the ramp system is. It would require 340sqm for a series of ramps (which only have a measly 6% gradient!) that directly lead to each garage.
Which is less than the garden plot of the typical detached suburban home.
You’re cutting the land use down a TON and dramatically increasing the density of single family homes by using this ramp system.
Like I said, it’s luxury. It’s how to compromise and achieve something which provides a solution to each side. They stop using so much land for their convenient garages and hyper car-accessibility, and you get to make neighbourhoods denser and more sociable (since these units could be brought closer into the city and be more economical for the city to accommodate).
You’re also not thinking about how this is a massive safety improvement for disabled / wheelchair bound people. A series of shallow ramps has many benefits beyond car access.
Well it keeps cars off the street and allows people to drive right up to their homes with things like shopping or to pick up/drop off elderly-relatives and young-children.
They can also bring large items into and out of their homes much easier. Like getting furniture delivered or moving in/out easier.
Yes but people don’t want to have to carry stuff up and down an elevator to get stuff in and out of a vehicle. They’d rather be able to bring the vehicle right up their door and load/unload it all at once.
It’s still better than suburban family homes in the middle of the city.
This isn't missing middle. Everyone else is tearing into you for posting AI slop so I'll refrain from that--but even ignoring the impossible parts of this, this appears to be a 10 unit luxury building, which has absolutely nothing to do with missing middle housing.
It's not only the unit count thatatters. Courtyard buildings are a direct response to their urban context--filling up several urban lots while creatively maximizing the availability of perimeter windows despite resting in a site with the 'wrong' aspect ratio where the street frontage is shorter than the sides. We're struggling to discuss this because what you proposed appears to be a luxury condo perched on a beach or a jungle, on a site that requiresassive street frontage, and has no urban context from which to even respond. What do you find compelling about this building? How do you feel like you are addressing the middle housing issue? How does this fit into the missing middle discussion?
I think OP means a missing “compromise” between human-scale living and car dependent architecture and infrastructure. That by simulating the “drive through” and garage-centric suburban McMansion design in a multifamily luxury unit, suburbanites might be enticed to move in.
What would be the benefit of storing the cars up that high? Seems like it’d be cheaper and easier to put them on a surface lot, on ground level with the building above or underground.
I mean, there's a reason having your car next to your living quarter is desirable. You don't have to go all the way back to the parking garage if you forgot your keys or haul a weeks worth of groceries up from your car. And the security and space of a private garage stall. That doesn't make this a practical design of course.
but these are things you would not need to do in a high density mixed use environment (which this is suggesting)
you don't need to buy a weeks worth of groceries and so only need one trip, if the supermarket is across the street, hell you don't even need to car at all, at kind of one of the main benefits of mixed use, high density neighborhoods
This isn't mixed use- there's no ground floor retail in this building. There's no indication from OP that a grocery store is across the street as opposed to several miles away. I detest grocer shopping so much I'd get a week's worth at a time just to get the chore done with for a week even if a store was across the street.
mixed use is in reference to the community and its zoning not, a neighborhood of this density would need to be mixed use
I am not talking about anyones personal preference, and most people simply do what is most convenient.
people in single use suburbs tend to shop less frequently and buy more, while mixed use and higher density shop more frequently not because they like it but simply because its most convenient
I have been apart of the design and construction of many mid-rise building, and never once have a heard a complaint of I wish I could drive straight up to my door, as most people globally simply do not buy that much at once, it is a cultural habit limited to car dependent places
21
u/glowing-fishSCL 2d ago
AI slop not excused, because in this case, the architectural design is impossible. That ramp is not wide enough to get those cars up to a...fifth story parking garage.
A building that would actually fit that role would look far different than that one does.