i can guarantee you that i have been to more north american cities than you and i can also guarantee that you are both incorrect and that you are a tit.
with a few exceptions, every time i come home from an american city, many far larger than winnipeg (houston, dallas, phoenix, atlanta, KC, st. louis) and particularily those of a similar size (tuscon, tulsa, omaha, albequerque, toledo, birmingham, richmond) i think to myself that we need to stop complaing so much......winnipeg's downtown is more vibrant than all of those cities.
anyhoo....
this thread is an example of the misconception the masses have of those who support good urban development...i often hear when criticising places like waverly west, 'not everyone wants to live downtown'....while downtown residential is important it isnt the only thing that makes a good city...single family neighbourhoods are just as important....there is a huge difference between the dense grid street layout of river heights, wolsely and crescentwood and the cul de sac sprawl of white ridge.
i often argue that although winnipeg's downtown population could be larger, its residential neighbourhoods are actually quite urban in comparison to most other cities....not everything has to be downtown to be considered urban or good for the city....it is about overall density.
calgary is a perfect example...it has a decent residential population downtown (actually the same as winnipeg's)...but the city's overall urban quality suffers because it has few compact single family residential neighbouroods.
all cities have single family homes...they are not the enemy of urban quality....as long as they are done right.
Last edited by trueviking; Sep 17, 2009 at 3:08 AM.
|