>North Miami Beach

Holy shit, I didn't realize that until you said something. My family has a condo in NMB right by one of his plazas and I never connected the dots.

I have definitely specifically noticed the logo in both places but never made the connection.

Further, it's generally regarded as a good thing when the basketball goes through the hoop, because that's the most common way points are scored in the game of basketball. However, it's only a good thing if you are on the scoring team.

It takes a precise throw to get the ball through the hoop, especially one so accurate that it never even touches the metal rim and only makes contact with the net the way it's depicted on the building. This is commonly referred to as a "swish" or "nothin but net".

I'm pretty sure I understand the idea, I'm just not following how it's not a zero-sum game, nor how it makes sense in this little plot in question.

Here, there's nowhere close to enough space to make anything remotely self-sustaining, and there are tons of businesses nearby already. Like, I'm pretty sure Aldi corporate isn't going to go for building another Aldi 1 mile away from an existing one, on an out-of-the-way peninsula behind a neighborhood. So what's it going to be, like a food desert style convenience store? Overpriced fancy market?

Or can we maybe just let it be residential so more people can have more affordable housing?

>This is not fewer homes, it’s mixing homes and commercial

How is that not reducing the number of housing units? Whatever space is commercial could be residential instead.

> I’m also referring to a maximized return in terms of land used, not investor returns

Okay then swap in "promoting commercial business" to my previous comment and the point remains.

>greatly increases return on the space

Are investor returns really our top priority though? I just kinda want people to be able to find a place to live. I'm having a hard time seeing fewer homes as a win-win.

How does that square with our current inflation and housing crisis though? Simulating the economy and reducing housing is kinda the opposite of what we need right now, isn't it?

Thank you for explaining

> The layout says more housing. Not mixed use.

Gotcha, that's how I see it too.

> mixed use zoning for that inland lot would be a boon for both this development and the existing neighborhood.

Do you mind expanding on this need for mixed-use? I asked elsewhere in this thread, and it's apparently a controversial question but as yet no one has really helped me understand why.

My perception is that there are plenty of (too many) vacancies in light commercial spaces. Meanwhile, we desperately need more housing units. So then it seems like we should maximize the number of housing units we build, rather than sacrificing housing units to build even more light commercial space.

Why is it better to build fewer units in favor of more commercial space?

I'm not sure we're totally on the same page.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be mixed use, or that people in cheap apartments don't deserve amenities...I'm just saying that as far as I see it, we are in more dire need of housing than we are in light commercial spaces. There are tons of vacant storefronts and housing is insanely tight, so we should build what we need. I think we're much better off putting 400 residential units on this plot than putting 200 residential and a handful of commercial spaces.

Beyond that, a nice piece of property like this - right on the water and out of the way - is much better suited for residential, and those hypothetical businesses will be much better off along already-commercial main roads where no one would want to live. The businesses want the traffic, the apartments don't. No need to shoehorn things in places that don't suit them.

But lastly, I want to make it clear that I am still open to learning more. Those are my impressions, but I don't have a particularly educated or firm opinion here.

I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Are you responding to my question about mixed use and saying that the surrounding commercial areas need to expand, so some of this property should be given to commercial expansion? Or adding a point that those commercial spaces should be refurbished in-place?

Thank you for the extra insight!

Yeah I feel you.

I mean, sure, but in the area it seems like housing is the more urgent need. But maybe I'm wrong.

FWIW, Hope Market is immediately next door to this development (are they like a regular market?), the Aldi is 1 mile away, and there are several walkable deli, bakery, coffee, restaurant, etc. options too. I don't imagine that any of those businesses are so flat out that the distributed business from an extra 400 families in the neighborhood will break them.

But, again, please correct me if I'm wrong...is that what you're hoping for, a micro-community on the property with all the necessities for life on those 27 acres? I realize that might have sounded sarcastic, but I would genuinely like to learn more and hear what you have to say.

> mixed-use zoning

What mixed uses would you want to see, like coffee shops and restaurants on the same property? It seems to me like the area needs more housing units most urgently, so maximizing the number of those makes sense. But maybe there's something I'm not understanding.

> no proposed transit connections

Doesn't bus 35 go right by already? Surely they'll add a stop once this is finished....right? They better.

The location for anyone interested: https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B050'25.3%22N+71%C2%B022'13.2%22W/@41.8411317,-71.3713023,968m/

> The site has been remediated and reclaimed and will now be developed into 392 single and multi-family units in addition to apartments adding to the housing stock in East Providence. The development includes 39 age-restricted affordable housing units.

I don't see if there are other non-age-restricted designated affordable units, but I would sure hope so. I also don't see that the city is kicking in any money in the form of grants, loans, or tax reductions, which might explain the inability to force more affordable units.

Either way, more supply is still a good thing...especially in a location like this.

Lolllllll imagine thinking that having a super-expensive weeklong wedding on a different continent would make someone a better RI governor.

You people are like babies, grasping onto whatever comes by.

Here's the inventory checker for Home Depot pellets. Greatest stock is currently Coventry with 105 pallets of pellets: https://brickseek.com/home-depot-inventory-checker/?sku=308632333

And here's Lowes, multiple stores in the state with 4,000+ bags in stock, and over 6,500 in Seekonk: https://brickseek.com/lowes-inventory-checker/?sku=5001965889

Oh no no, it was all in jest!

>especially the part where they're talking about immigration/housing status.

Yeah that stuck me as odd too. Why call out specific characteristics that are unknown? "We don't know anything about the individual" covers all the bases.

> The slowest FIOS I can get now is 300 Mbps for $40.

You could drop down to a slower speed with Cox if you wanted.

But it's $10 more lol.

> The average person has absolutely no need for high upload speeds.

I think you may be a bit out of date. The average person these days is absolutely backing up data in the cloud. Whether it's iCloud or Google One (I think that's what they call it) to back up everything, or just backing up media like through Google Photos, a lot of people are uploading a lot of data now.

I don't really know about their customer service since I've never had to call. The service always works as expected, and they've always charged me what i was expecting. I have had fios for around 4 years, and I don't think there has ever been a time when the power has been on and the internet has not worked.

Aren't they all?

I appreciate that nowhere in this did you mention any humor in relation to improv.