Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
I find it pretty easy to believe--it's incredible the density you can achieve with just consistently built up, modestly sized, two-storey houses of the kind the peninsula would've been covered with back in the 60s, many of which have since been demolished for parking lots, warehouses, autobody shops, etc. (This is why I suggested on another thread that the North End's population could probably be doubled or tripled without tearing down a single old house--the 20th century did an efficient job of that already, in the process creating a lot of gaps in the urban fabric ripe for refilling.)
In any case, a lot of city centres are less populated today than at their historical peak. Manhattan is the classic example: In 1910, there were over 2.3 million people on the island. Today, even with a bursting skyline, and a booming economy, there are just 1.6 million.
As far as the lack of mi-rise and high-rise in 1960s Halifax, there's actually compelling evidence that when cities grow beyond six or so storeys, they lose density, as per this table looking at the population densities of neighbourhoods in Berlin.
This is both because extremely tall buildings tend to have larger footprints and more space in between, and also because ever-widening elevator shafts eat up dwelling room. Similar results have been found in other cities on other continents. About a six to eight storey height, built uniformly over an urban area, is ideal for density. Of course, with a lower established vernacular, Canadian cities, including Halifax, have missed that boat, so towers are useful to compensate--but towers don't necessarily always equal high density, and an entirely low-rise Halifax could easily have been more dense than today's.
Fenwick is also right that family sizes in Canada are a lot smaller than in the past, meaning that there are a lot fewer people per household than in the past. I did a study a few years ago looking at census tracts in Toronto's central west end--the wealthiest tracts actually lost population between 2001 and 2006, and again between 2006 and 2011, as homeowners bought houses that had been converted years ago into small apartment buildings, and re-converted back them into single-family dwellings. |
I also find the population numbers easy to believe, and I actually agree you could "double" the North End population easily, but we'd have to accept a lot more 7-8 storey developments around small/lower single unit residential. It's quite clear we're not ready to accept that change in Halifax.
I think Fenwick's data is probable right-- in the 1960's, yes, you had high levels of density in this single unit homes and, of course, in some of the squalor in parts of the city, where big families crammed in small spaces, out of necessity. But people don't have big families like that anymore. Most families today essentially sustain, but do not grow, the population.
So, today, all those low rise single unit homes in Halifax have become density killers; seniors or empty nester Boomers inhabiting big homes, with no kids left. Those Boomers are slowly moving to condos in the city, but it's a slow development.
But fertility rates aren't the only cause. In the late 1960s and 1970s, began the "white flight" to the suburbs, which apparently was facilitated by the MacDonald bridge. Development planned for, and focused on, the automobile, with the MacDonald, Cogswell, and other major arteries being built or proposed. Luckily, these were canned. But the sprawl growth continued for four decades, and is still going strong, with not stop or disincentive in sight.
Since much of the peninsula are these low-rise, low density single-unit homes, we need to compensate with greater levels of intense density and high rise development elsewhere. We're not doing that. Every proposal is a war.