[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[AnUrbanLife]

Originally Posted by AllBlack

Interesting discussion guys. I have to say that I fall more to Copes’ way of thinking here. I am always wary of central planning, social engineering, and indifference to the element of personal choice. My libertarian streak will 1) naturally defend an individual’s freedom to choose where he wants to live and in what type of dwelling, and 2) be quite wary of those who claim that the individual is somehow misinformed of his true wants and must be directed by a central body of experts who know better.

I’d love to see higher density and sustainable urban neighborhoods in the core of our city. But not by force, and not against the prevailing market. Let’s hope that developments such as Mix/Marconi, Tiffany Condos, and yes Pleasantville are successful in opening minds in favor of better urban planning and higher density.

There are those who would argue that because of the disproportionate use of the single family detached home and the way other options are executed that your choice has been largely taken from you already.

[Copes]

Originally Posted by AnUrbanLife

There are those who would argue that because of the disproportionate use of the single family detached home and the way other options are executed that your choice has been largely taken from you already.

And that is actually an interesting argument to make. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though, isn't it?

What came first? People's demand for single family detached, or the existence of nothing but single-family detached?

[Architype]

I generally agree with almost everything said by Mrjanejacobs above, and I've said many of these things before. The Pleasantville area plan as I see it is a lost opportunity to develop something properly urban with appropriate density for the city. It's not likely that any other area will ever be available with this amount of land being so close to downtown. Why do you need to include any single family homes (for choice?) when they are available absolutely everywhere else in the city, even in the adjacent neighborhood (and even downtown if you count row housing as SFH). I see lots of hype and good intentions but not much vision in this plan, nothing seems to respond to the existing community, the landscape or the geographic location. I see it as another neighborhood planned around automobiles and not so much for people, which is the issue at the core of all these arguments for a more urban landscape. For example there is no visible pedestrian interface with the lake, the areas most unique asset. If you think townhouses are a good solution, I would point out that unfortunately townhouses are not generally well designed in NL and Atlantic Canada on several levels; the styles are dull and extremely repetitive, and there is usually no allowance for parking execpt right in front of the units, which in turn ruins any hope of a pleasant streetscape. I don't expect them to be executed be much better in Pleasantville; they present a generally unnatractive alternative to single family housing; this is something which needs to be worked on. As pointed out by Copes, the intentions in the plan are generally good (i.e. mixed uses and incomes), but I somehow doubt that it will be actually be carried out in that way because the planned density will just not be enough to support it - and that planned density will not be there at all if the two to four highrises in the plan are not built. In short, I see the Pleasantville plan as not much different from the typical garden suburb which was developed in the 1800s (the prototype for all 20th century suburban developments which followed), and not something which necessarily belongs to the 21st century.

[AnUrbanLife]

Originally Posted by Copes

And that is actually an interesting argument to make. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though, isn't it?

What came first? People's demand for single family detached, or the existence of nothing but single-family detached?

Yea, a tough nut to crack. I do think that if there were a mix of well executed options though, we would then have an actual, level playing field, choice.

I personally feel that when options other than detached are produced , they tend to be low income or retirement, with a few young professional thrown in and don't appeal to the middle of the bell curve as it were. And not because they couldn't, but because developers are heavily skewing our choice in their favour, of what makes them more money not necessarily what would provide us with the best quality of life.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Copes

I assure you it is a prevailing attitude in the city. Take that for what you will. I'd love for it to change. However in my experience it has not. I try to do what I can to convince people otherwise, and argue against it vehemently, but I don't blind myself to the existence of that attitude. Instead, I try to work within that framework to improve the neighbourhoods these people think they want, and show them why a different mindset is a better mindset.

I think that's a healthy strategy, for sure. I am also extremely interested in how we can retrofit existing suburban communities to make them more livable and even more dense. But I also think that politicians are the stewards of society, and I don't think they are doing enough to confront these out-dated attitudes (I know they are there, I am not "blind" to them).

Consider the single-detached dwelling... our society cannot afford it. I totally understand your argument that we can't go cold-turkey on it, and I do agree, particularly in the suburbs (less so for Pleasantville). It's like the privately owner automobile. Of course people want it, it's more 'luxurious', more land, more 'ownership' - but do we really have the resources to sustain it in the long-run? This housing requires more maintenance, more roads to service the large spacing between houses, more water pipes, more utilities, more gas for garbage trucks, more expensive snow-clearing and more expensive garbage/recylcing collection, more to heat, not to mention the energy loss, etc. Yet, these same people want lower taxes... it simply doesn't add-up. Our society has created a 'false reality' - one in which people have been led to believe that their privately owned automobile and their single-detached house is within reach/affordable. Developers continue to build them because they will make a profit from it, because there's a demand. But they don't give a f**k about society or what we can sustain in the long-run, they care about profits. We are supposed to allow this to go on? Developers are literally leading us down a road which we cannot afford?

Whether you believe in capitalism or libertarianism, how can we validate this behaviour yet we will so quickly condemn 'social engineering' and not allowing people to do so? At least the latter will save our society huge problems in the future....

Originally Posted by Copes

I'd prefer them in rowhouses and condos for sure, but I would ALSO prefer them in a single-detached in Pleasantville than a single detached in Southlands.

ahha - very good point.

Originally Posted by Copes

What is the point of planning a neighbourhood that nobody wants? There will be no demand for the homes, prices will plummet, no one will want to build there, and the neighbourhood will deteriorate

People will grow to love it, you see... hahaha. That's the method of my madness. I know it's not going to happen because such obtuse 'social engineering' is taboo in our capitalist society, but theoretically, it's what we should be doing. If people are forced to live in a community because of a shortage of (unsustainable) alternatives, they will gradually (and more quickly) change their perspective.

Originally Posted by Copes

I think that for a planner, it makes much more sense to lead an effort that finds a happy medium. Start showing people that more density is better by improving on the model they have already accepted.

If you think i'm being idealistic, then I don't even know what to call this... haha not only is it idealistic but it will take generations to see much change in the attitudes. But it's a healthy proposal.

Originally Posted by Copes

I agree. However I am also against government telling people what they should want. I'll sit on CBC and tell people all day how wrong they are, but at the end of the day if they still want to pay money for it that is their right as a consumer.

We clearly have divergent political ideologies. But I just wanted to say/reiterate that the capitalist model is flawed. Developers are dictating the prices to build these communities and sub-divisions. They have no consideration for what society can sustain or what is best for the environment. Developers can not making decisions for society, as they are doing. Who do you think has to come in and plow these roads, and collect garbage and provide utilities and water-and-sewer? Who has to pay for the extra kilometres a bus needs to run to cover the sprawled area? Tax-payersssss. Why should people in dense spaces subsidize the life-style of people living in single-detached dwellings with big backyards?

--

In a more general plea, I'll argue single-detached housing (the essence of suburbanization) is just too expensive for our society. It's not a PREFERENCE that I am an opponent, nor am I taking the choice away from individuals or 'consumers', I am simply speaking on behalf of society and what we can afford.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Copes

And that is actually an interesting argument to make. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though, isn't it?

What came first? People's demand for single family detached, or the existence of nothing but single-family detached?

I would argue that the existence (or creation) came before the demand. The general invention of things comes before the demand is created. There can be no actual demand, except in theory, if something does not exist or isn't made available. How many ways can I say that, lol?

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Architype

I generally agree with almost everything said by Mrjanejacobs above, and I've said many of these things before. The Pleasantville area plan as I see it is a lost opportunity to develop something properly urban with appropriate density for the city. It's not likely that any other area will ever be available with this amount of land being so close to downtown. Why do you need to include any single family homes (for choice?) when they are available absolutely everywhere else in the city, even in the adjacent neighborhood (and even downtown if you count row housing as SFH). I see lots of hype and good intentions but not much vision in this plan, nothing seems to respond to the existing community, the landscape or the geographic location. I see it as another neighborhood planned around automobiles and not so much for people, which is the issue at the core of all these arguments for a more urban landscape. For example there is no visible pedestrian interface with the lake, the areas most unique asset. If you think townhouses are a good solution, I would point out that unfortunately townhouses are not generally well designed in NL and Atlantic Canada on several levels; the styles are dull and extremely repetitive, and there is usually no allowance for parking execpt right in front of the units, which in turn ruins any hope of a pleasant streetscape. I don't expect them to be executed be much better in Pleasantville; they present a generally unnatractive alternative to single family housing; this is something which needs to be worked on. As pointed out by Copes, the intentions in the plan are generally good (i.e. mixed uses and incomes), but I somehow doubt that it will be actually be carried out in that way because the planned density will just not be enough to support it - and that planned density will not be there at all if the two to four highrises in the plan are not built. In short, I see the Pleasantville plan as not much different from the typical garden suburb which was developed in the 1800s (the prototype for all 20th century suburban developments which followed), and not something which necessarily belongs to the 21st century.

Perfectly said, brotha' from anotha' motha'.

Just one note on the unattractive row-houses, which is a great point - I have often envisioned a neighbourhood in St.John's made of charming wooden row-houses which was serviced by a back-alley (in a very Montreal-esque way) which would provide parking space, courtyard/backyard spaces as well as a thoroughfare for bicyclists and pedestrians. With that said, I would never have these expectations/hopes for a development in St.John's... unfortunately.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Architype

I would argue that the existence (or creation) came before the demand. The general invention of things comes before the demand is created. There can be no actual demand, except in theory, if something does not exist or isn't made available. How many ways can I say that, lol?

haha - again, I agree. Which is exactly why we need a massive infusion of new-housing types in St.John's - only this will begin the gradual changing of attitudes. We can't wait for attitudes to change when no alternatives exist. They won't change on their own!

[AllBlack]

Originally Posted by Architype

I would argue that the existence (or creation) came before the demand. The general invention of things comes before the demand is created. There can be no actual demand, except in theory, if something does not exist or isn't made available. How many ways can I say that, lol?

Heheh, I think I follow you Architype.

With an increasing number of higher density residential developments in progress and on the horizon, I guess we will see if that demand is there.

I worry though that many of these developments are in non-walkable neighbourhoods and are not surrounded by the necessary neighborhood amenities (groceries, schools, churches, etc). So we'll gain density but do little about the car-centric nature of our city.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Perfectly said, brotha' from anotha' motha'.

Just one note on the unattractive row-houses, which is a great point - I have often envisioned a neighbourhood in St.John's made of charming wooden row-houses which was serviced by a back-alley (in a very Montreal-esque way) which would provide parking space, courtyard/backyard spaces as well as a thoroughfare for bicyclists and pedestrians. With that said, I would never have these expectations/hopes for a development in St.John's... unfortunately.

jeez Mrjanejacobs for an optimist you tend to sound pretty negative sometimes .. I enjoy the different visions but these discussions are starting to sound quite downing (no offence i'm not criticizing i'm just observing)

instead of just saying there's no hope .. lets talk about how we can achieve this from our positions .. we could have said that the NIMBYs will rule out all development but we started to organize ourselves and have email campaigns and attend meetings to try to help fix things

edit: not to mention that i'm planning on running, so lets have the conversation on how we can make things better and appreciate the achievements we have made

[Architype]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Just one note on the unattractive row-houses, which is a great point - I have often envisioned a neighbourhood in St.John's made of charming wooden row-houses which was serviced by a back-alley (in a very Montreal-esque way) which would provide parking space, courtyard/backyard spaces as well as a thoroughfare for bicyclists and pedestrians. With that said, I would never have these expectations/hopes for a development in St.John's... unfortunately.

No need to sound negative, that should be fairly simple to implement, it's one of the things that makes higher density more aesthetically pleasing, functional, and livable, it's proven already.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

jeez Mrjanejacobs for an optimist you tend to sound pretty negative sometimes .. I enjoy the different visions but these discussions are starting to sound quite downing (no offence i'm not criticizing i'm just observing)

instead of just saying there's no hope .. lets talk about how we can achieve this from our positions .. we could have said that the NIMBYs will rule out all development but we started to organize ourselves and have email campaigns and attend meetings to try to help fix things

edit: not to mention that i'm planning on running, so lets have the conversation on how we can make things better and appreciate the achievements we have made

Yeah - I will apologize for sounding a bit cynical. But there's a lot of reason to be cynical in St.John's when we discuss planning and urbanism.

It's not the fault of Newfoundlanders, but we have no Urban Planning school, no Urban Design school, no Architecture school or Landscape Architecture, etc. etc. How can we expect our population to be informed if we don't have a group of educated individuals who can lead this discussion? Or at least, a steady flow of educated individuals to lead this discussion?

That's the solution. hahaa..... however unrealistic. But honestly, the population in Newfoundland is EXTREMELY disengaged/unaware with urban issues so it's a really tough (uphill) battle. We can't talk about how we'll fix these problems until we have the serious conversation about what we're facing... and that is a population who knows nothing about urban planning and even more, will actively antagonize any effort for sustainable planning. So negative? You betchya!

With that said, I wouldn't bother having the conversation at all if I thought it was a lost cause ahha

[AnUrbanLife]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Yeah - I will apologize for sounding a bit cynical. But there's a lot of reason to be cynical in St.John's when we discuss planning and urbanism.

It's not the fault of Newfoundlanders, but we have no Urban Planning school, no Urban Design school, no Architecture school or Landscape Architecture, etc. etc. How can we expect our population to be informed if we don't have a group of educated individuals who can lead this discussion? Or at least, a steady flow of educated individuals to lead this discussion?

That's the solution. hahaa..... however unrealistic. But honestly, the population in Newfoundland is EXTREMELY disengaged/unaware with urban issues so it's a really tough (uphill) battle. We can't talk about how we'll fix these problems until we have the serious conversation about what we're facing... and that is a population who knows nothing about urban planning and even more, will actively antagonize any effort for sustainable planning. So negative? You betchya!

With that said, I wouldn't bother having the conversation at all if I thought it was a lost cause ahha

I think you're underestimating the level of knowledge and engagement that exists in St. John's. Just looking at these boards shows a growing interest and knowledge base which I think is extremely exciting.

I've loved reading the well thought out ideas and reasoned arguments all round and have largely been quite impressed. It tells me that a much larger population exists in the city who are having these conversations and entertaining new ideas.

So Kudos St. John's, I for one am very excited to be apart of it.

[Trevor3]

Originally Posted by Copes

And that is actually an interesting argument to make. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though, isn't it?

What came first? People's demand for single family detached, or the existence of nothing but single-family detached?

Originally Posted by Architype

I would argue that the existence (or creation) came before the demand. The general invention of things comes before the demand is created. There can be no actual demand, except in theory, if something does not exist or isn't made available. How many ways can I say that, lol?

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

It's not the fault of Newfoundlanders, but we have no Urban Planning school, no Urban Design school, no Architecture school or Landscape Architecture, etc. etc. How can we expect our population to be informed if we don't have a group of educated individuals who can lead this discussion? Or at least, a steady flow of educated individuals to lead this discussion?

That's the solution. hahaa..... however unrealistic. But honestly, the population in Newfoundland is EXTREMELY disengaged/unaware with urban issues so it's a really tough (uphill) battle. We can't talk about how we'll fix these problems until we have the serious conversation about what we're facing... and that is a population who knows nothing about urban planning and even more, will actively antagonize any effort for sustainable planning. So negative? You betchya!

With that said, I wouldn't bother having the conversation at all if I thought it was a lost cause ahha

I'm really enjoying following this discussion, keep it up! That said, I felt I could offer a little perspective with regard to these three posts that I've quoted.

I've said this on here before, possibly in this thread a hundred pages or so back, but a lot of development in the St. John's metro area is the result of people moving from outlying rural areas into the city. That's not news to anybody, outside of a few service centre towns, mostly everywhere is decline except St. John's. This is why I've always believed that the demand for single family detached homes in St. John's is so great. People are coming from small communities where those homes are the only option, the only type of housing they've ever experienced, and they aren't all to intrigued by having people, quite literally, on top of them. Even personally, I can't imagine living in a downtown row house with no yard, no driveway, just a front door and a street with neighbours pushing up on all sides.

Now, if no single family detached homes were built and only townhouses or high-rise apartment complexes, than there would be no say in the matter. But, the people coming in don't seem to want that and the market is representative of them.

It is too bad that we don't have an urban design or achitecture school here, but in all honesty, it wouldn't make much sense in having an urban studies department (or something of the sort) in a province with only 1 urban area. Which brings me to my point that even the population of urban Newfoundland is largely rural in its way of thinking because at the root, these are still rural people. I think a lot of people are used to seeing their communities slowly dying and coming to St. John's where there is so much growth and positive development they fail to see negatives associated with it, such as increased traffic, unsustainable building practices, poor neighbourhood planning etc...

[Townie709]

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Trevor!

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Trevor3

Now, if no single family detached homes were built and only townhouses or high-rise apartment complexes, than there would be no say in the matter.

I think a lot of people are used to seeing their communities slowly dying and coming to St. John's where there is so much growth and positive development they fail to see negatives associated with it, such as increased traffic, unsustainable building practices, poor neighbourhood planning etc...

I don't think anyone is trying to say no more single family homes at all (even though on pure principle I might say that), just that they don't belong in a new development near downtown such as Pleasantville.

And - how can people fail to see the problems created by traffic from the suburbs and big box developments. They complain about it all the time. I think you will see much more increasing traffic problems as this continues with developments like Glencrest.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Trevor3

Even personally, I can't imagine living in a downtown row house with no yard, no driveway, just a front door and a street with neighbours pushing up on all sides.

Trevor - I really appreciate your point. I never thought about this aspect of St.John's demography. You have a fair point (not to say I'll back down on my insistence of sustainable housing types, haha). I just wanted to note that row-houses still have a backyard (always, always, always). But I'm curious why you want a drive-way... haha that seems random, but nevertheless, you can still have drive-ways with row-houses too!

Originally Posted by Trevor3

It is too bad that we don't have an urban design or achitecture school here, but in all honesty, it wouldn't make much sense in having an urban studies department (or something of the sort) in a province with only 1 urban area.

Not necessarily, all towns have urban planners working for them! Even Stephenville! Corner Brook! CBS! Paradise! Torbay! St. Anthony! etc. etc. Urban Planners can find a job wherever there is people living closely together. And Nova Scotia has similar programs... they are not THAT much different than us. An urban studies school would be a perfect, and desperately-needed, addition to MUN! Again - good comments!

[Trevor3]

Originally Posted by Architype

I don't think anyone is trying to say no more single family homes at all (even though on pure principle I might say that), just that they don't belong in a new development near downtown such as Pleasantville.

And - how can people fail to see the problems created by traffic from the suburbs and big box developments. They complain about it all the time. I think you will see much more increasing traffic problems as this continues with developments like Glencrest.

In response to the first statement, I should have clarified what I meant. I know nobody is saying "no" to more single family homes, I offered that up as a hypothetical situation to clarify my point on why there is such a strong demand for individual homes. Specifically, my attempt to demonstrate that demand for single family homes came before construction (at least in my opinion).

Traffic. People complain about traffic all the time, everywhere. I don't think they realize broader issues associated with traffic congestion that exists in some areas of the city, such as pollution (both noise and air). They see the issue of congestion and just think the road needs to be widened, rather than looking at the big picture to see that there is a need for more density and services in neighbourhoods. They don't see the issue of poor planning which has led to their total reliance on big box development, instead they just see a road near capacity.

Agree totally with Glencrest. That's a nightmare waiting to happen, unless it's built with more density and shops, services, and offices within it.

[Townie709]

If an urban studies school was added to MUN, I'd be the first to enroll!

[Trevor3]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Trevor - I really appreciate your point. I never thought about this aspect of St.John's demography. You have a fair point (not to say I'll back down on my insistence of sustainable housing types, haha). I just wanted to note that row-houses still have a backyard (always, always, always). But I'm curious why you want a drive-way... haha that seems random, but nevertheless, you can still have drive-ways with row-houses too!

Not necessarily, all towns have urban planners working for them! Even Stephenville! Corner Brook! CBS! Paradise! Torbay! St. Anthony! etc. etc. Urban Planners can find a job wherever there is people living closely together. And Nova Scotia has similar programs... they are not THAT much different than us. An urban studies school would be a perfect, and desperately-needed, addition to MUN! Again - good comments!

I think there is a great need for sustainable housing as well, I merely offer up my preference for single family homes to show why they are in such demand from people moving to the city and why so many people moving into St. John's wouldn't want a condo or place in a more dense neighbourhood. I recognize the need for more dense development in St. John's and really hope the city moves in the right direction. Single-family homes all day, everyday, is completey unsustainable, especially in its current form.

I guess my driveway comment is sympotamatic of the reliance that many rural people have on cars. I can walk across town from the office I currently work in (on the base) to my house on the western boundary of town in 35 minutes. Yet, I drive. Even on beautiful summer days. I can walk to a convenience store in the summer through a nice walking trail in 5-7 minutes, yet I drive, which is a circular route and takes just as long. And you need a driveway to park in. On-street isn't the same, and that's a big knock on rowhouses for people not native to St. John's. There are backyards but all of your neighbours are right on top of you and can see everything you do out there, there's very little privacy. At this point I'm more or less playing devil's advocate to show you all the negatives people who aren't used to city living are often thinking.

I'm aware that most towns have some sort of urban planner or town manager working for them. I looked into the urban planning programs at Dalhousie in Halifax, but at the end of the day ended up deciding to do something else.