Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
Biguc, while I don't disagree with some of your points, a quick sidenote: 400m is a 5 minute walk, not 10 minutes.
Here's a video posted in one of these threads a while back, of what Bridgwater Centre could be.
• Video Link
I doubt it will develop exactly like this for lots of reasons (market demand, economics, retail trends, etc.). However, it's tough to argue that the idea behind it isn't a good first step. I mean, I'm not sure if you've ever been to Bridgwater (I doubt many have by the way they talk about it), but it's miles ahead of our 80s suburbs. I mean, this isn't Royalwood. It's a lot denser than anything we've seen in probably 50 years (in terms of lot sizes, patterns, and inclusion of pockets of 4-storey condos and townhouses) - density that may surprisingly come close to some of the oft-cited "inner-suburbs" lauded here. There are backlanes along some streets, and in many ways, it's the fused-grid that planners love. Connectivity in the grid isn't an issue, because there are tonnes of egresses that connect bays/streets - this isn't the cliche'd Florida example where a kid needs to drive 15 miles to his friend's cul-de-sac which he backs onto. Lots of pathways and cycling trails too.
As for the Centre shown in the video, isn't this what we're striving for in our new communities? Built to the street, higher density, mixed-use? It's basically as close as we can get to Osborne without building a community using 1900s standards. |
Like you, I think that plan is pie in the sky.
I just don't think Manitoba Housing is up to building the density in Bridgwater Centre to support the kind of services they want. Winnipeg's good neighborhood streets like Osborne, Marion, and Sherbrook are buttressed by an immediate population of about ten thousand people. Manitoba Housing has started by building side by sides, which aren't going to cut it. And I have no idea what kind of demand there is for urban living in Bridgwater when it's a non-existent neighborhood and there are established neighborhoods.
We're also counting on Manitoba Housing to play developer here. I have no idea how that's going to work out. Worst case scenario, the area doesn't work out like they want and Housing just says fuck it and turns it into a massive suburban PJ. That's not something I see suburbanites buying market-rate condos being down with.
There's also the problem of its connections to Bridgwater Forest and Lake. Take Bison Drive--it's the central street that'll connect the Bridgwater subdivisions to Centre. If it were lined with condos and townhouses it could pull people in. But it's lined with a stockade fence.
I actually have been to Bridgwater quite a bit for work. I've seen the place develop. I get why you guys see things like alleys and fused grids and sidewalks and take it as an improvement, but it's all artifice unless any of it leads anywhere. That's cool that people can gambol around the retention ponds but for walking and cycling to be more than leisure time, those sidewalks need to go somewhere, and they don't.
Density is actually a big question I have about greater Bridgwater. I'm hopeful our next census can shed some light on that. I don't think its built form is as dense as you suggest. Its smaller lots are offset by over-wide streets and easements. Its smattering of condos are offset by retention ponds. But its demographics are different from '80s subdivisions. Instead of homes housing a statistically typical four person family, many houses are filled with newcomers and their large extended families. That's something that makes me optimistic about future suburban development. It's also something that makes the cruddy design of Bridgwater extra frustrating.