Here's an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.

The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let's assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.

The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.

It also makes for more flexible spaces. It's hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you're building something that can be repurposed in the future.

However, unless you're forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it's unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.

What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here's the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?

The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It's a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?

Here is an example of retail signage on Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. The interior signage (behind the glass above the doors) is specific to the brand Osklen (which is a great sustainable fashion company from Brazil). And the exterior soffit signage is specific to the property in that the same design and typeface is used for all of the retail tenants.

I think that this consistency creates a more elevated feel for the overall property, but the obvious downside is that the retailers don’t get to express their unique brands and identities in quite the same way. Still, I think the above approach is a pretty good compromise. What do you think?