Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
@urbanarchit
We aren't going to turn into Europe or Japan overnight. So we need to give up that dream. We need to simply focus on building neighbourhoods and cities that are more livable and not as massively car dependent. The city is actually doing better on transit oriented development. It's at least turned the corner here. So the issue really isn't around these spots. It's about the ever expanding suburban boundary. And suburbs that still aren't dense enough to really be walkable and transit friendly. Not to mention taxpayer friendly.
|
So because something won't happen overnight we need to give it up entirely? I disagree. But I also wasn't suggesting we become either of the two, but rather that I like Japan's method, which due to it being a federal standard implemented country wide means you don't really have much NIMBYism.
Urban kchoze has a good blog about Japanese urban planning, which has inclusive zoning (as opposed to ours which is exclusive). there are certainly a lot of things we can and should be doing in the meantime.
By all means, we do need to improve the current downtown and urban neighbourhoods, and figure out ways to retrofit the suburbs to make them more sustainable and less car dependent, but I think a lot of that is wishful thinking. A lot of land is already occupied such that building rapid transit to various neighbourhoods would be expensive and quite difficult due to little land in these areas being available to build such transit infrastructure. We also have a problem where a lot of current residents don't want development near them in their neighbourhoods, and so can stop or slow down any of these necessary changes. Look at Westboro and the issues with building LRT through that area! Another issue is that these neighbourhoods are already expensive and will only continue to get more expensive, largely due to less land, overly-restrictive zoning, opposition to new developments/ change, and also due to our current method of home-ownership and housing where it's used as an investment. I do believe we need to be doing something, but I no longer believe it's realistic or possible given all these challenges. We will need to do something in order to improve make the city/ neighbourhoods work for all.
That being said, as difficult as it may be, we should still be changing our urban planning and housing development strategies and laws (country-wide) to ensure that we new neighbourhoods (which may also be more affordable) are sustainable, not car-dependent/ designed for easier development, and be based around public transit (which was what streetcar suburbs were sort of about), much like I stated in my previous post. Retrofitting old/ existing neighbourhoods is one, and changing standards so new neighbourhoods don't make the same past mistakes is another thing we need to work towards.
I disagree with the City's effort on TOD. I think we're doing a terrible job, and it looks more like car-dependent planning with highrises. There's no community built around these stations (no retail or real social spaces), the streets are still designed for cars (see plans for South Keys and Blair), and we're still permitting too much car parking in new buildings right beside transit stations (see all, especially those at Westboro Station). Not only that, you have people like Jeff Leiper opposed to development at Westboro Station for being "too tall" because he thinks they should be shorter to transition for
current residents living the the detached houses nearby. Not only that, he has opposed 3-storey apartment buildings in the neighbourhood to preserve the character of the street for nearby residents who "bought a house 20 years ago expected only houses on their street" right around the corner from Richmond Road. And of the developments in Westboro that he called the "Wild West" are all within 500m of Westboro and Dominion Station. These are all examples of TOD that are being opposed by councillors and residents over the well-being of the city. Honestly, we're not really doing much for TOD, and should be doing a lot better.
I know I used Japan already, but Japanese cities really are the standard for transit-oriented development and building good, safe urban neighbourhoods with good transit and density with lowrise houses. Look at this suburb of Tokyo,
Kichijoji, which has a large park, lots of houses, yet TOD right at the train station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Montreal. Has decent density. You don't see too many skyscrapers or 50 storey condos. Lots of low rise apartments and duplexes.
|
I generally agree with most of what you said in the rest of the comment, but I do take issue with this as a former resident of Montreal. While a lot of Montreal does consist of 2-3 storey apartments in most of the city, with detached houses in other neighbourhoods, it does have quite a few skyscrapers and 50-storey condos, especially within the last decade. Montreal has been seeing a building boom in the last while, such that there are numerous highrise residential buildings recently built or currently under construction downtown.
There are height limits in the city, such as that buildings are limited to 50 floors to not block the view of Mont Royal, and areas like Le Plateau have bylaws prevent new development from being taller than 3 floors to preserve the character of that area (as well as bylaws for requiring buildings' doors and facades to be painted different colours). Otherwise, you see the Tour des Canadiens 1-3, L'Avenue, L'Icone, etc. around downtown/ Ville Marie burough. You also see highrises constructed around Nun's Island. Despite that, there are still a lot of other highrise buildings throughout the city, downtown and elsewhere.
Threaded Mode