Why so complicated? If you want a legal fix, look into overturning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....
Why so complicated? If you want a legal fix, look into overturning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....
Even in areas with much foot traffic, such as downtown Redwood City, about a third of the retail space is vacant.
If you look at thriving ground floor retail in traditional cities, often the storefronts are as small as 25 feet wide.
Free street parking that is occupied all day by the same car results in at most one net new customer, which isn’t good, and most street parking in the US is either free or priced low enough that people park too long.
Almost as bad is street parking: even if it's turning over it does not matter since you have a very limited number of spots and no place to wait for a spot so most people will just move on if they don't find a spot (and won't go to such a place intentionally as the chance of catching a free spot is miniscule).
with most of America though, it's hard work because actually getting to that level of density is chicken and egg; and then of course in California the ghost of Prop 13 rears its head and discourages residential densification in particular.
It’s certainly possible; Seattle and Portland have dense commercial centers outside of downtowns that are lively with little net new parking.
If you just removed the parking and replaced it with nothing, that wouldn't increase patronage.
But if you used that area to increase density instead, that could increase patronage. Especially if you go dense enough for the area to become a destination in itself and to make public transport a sensible option.
Really the root issue is that there is too much retail square footage in the US. Retail sq ft per person is 23 sq ft, compared to 2-5 in Europe and Japan. In that context building new retail is a fool’s errand. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
My theory is that they build the first floor facing the street as "retail" because they don't think an apartment in such a location will be profitable (much less so a condo) as it's going to be a very hard sell for the prospective tenants/owners. It's much cheaper than residential space and if somebody leases it - you get some profit but if not, you are not losing much.
In Seattle it’s a lot of dentist offices and new 150-seat restaurants, or at least a revolving door because no restaurant fills that size and they inevitably go under.
Seems like women have been indoctrinated to think that nails are important. Sorry, they are not. No man ever considers nails when regarding a woman. Only women look at nails when looking at other women.
The supposed attraction of long nails is like the pale-skinned attraction in all agricultural communities: pale skin means you are a rich lady-of-leisure, living inside the big house, not a farmer or laborer working under the sun in the fields.
This prejudice used to be true in western societies before the Industrial Revolution. But now it is reversed, with pale complexion meaning you are poor and work in a factory, but sun-tanned complexion meaning you are rich enough to holiday in Spain or Thailand to get sun in the winter, or now even get UV radiated on a sun-bed.
(As long-haul flights have come down in price, sunbeds are even cheaper, and warnings about skin cancer hit home, the inverse prejudice may be reverting back to the original pale-skin preference).
However, the farm-based prejudice is very much alive in East Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc.). Women from these countries carry parasols whenever there is a hint of sun, even if they have paid a lot of money to go to the sun on holiday, in say, Thailand or Bali.
[So there is the bizarre contradiction of western women paying for UV sunbeds, even as eastern women carry parasols on a hazy day.]
Nails are like that: you cannot have long nails if you are a farm worker, or craftsperson, or work in a laundry or a kitchen. Long nails mean you are lady of leisure, hence enviously regarded by other ladies.
Long decorated nails are not an indication of attractiveness to men, they are always and everywhere a signal of class, from one lady to another.
> Only women look at nails when looking at other women.
That's the same as men going to the gym and working hard on their biceps and triceps. (Many women do appreciate some muscles, but when you talk to them you will learn that the butt is the are you should focus on, if you want to maximize attraction for most of them. Leg day, every day.)
But there's nothing wrong with doing anything just for a kind of beauty that opposite gender by and large doesn't care about. As long as you care about it, that's fine.
> However, the farm-based prejudice is very much alive in East Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc.). Women from these countries carry parasols whenever there is a hint of sun, even if they have paid a lot of money to go to the sun on holiday, in say, Thailand or Bali.
I live in Singapore. You are right that many people here don't like to get too much sun. Me included. (But that's far from everyone here. Some people don't care too much.) I don't think there's much of an overlap between people going to sun themselves in Bali and the kind of people who carry a parasol.
Back to the nails: I just clip mine myself, and they honestly look fairly terrible. I could go for the same length but have them done nicely. Not even with decoration or nail polish, just nice and with clear lines and perhaps some polishing. (And whatever else they can do.)
If I worked in a customer-centric job, that would be absolutely vital. Or if my hands showed up on video a lot etc.
None of this has anything to do with long nails or attraction by the preferred sex.
Btw, please compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking