Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So I was proving that they can and do build a large variety of buildings.

Sarcasm is hard to detect I guess.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree it isn't common though. The fact is builders build what people want to buy. Interestingly, Stittsville Central wrote an interesting article last month: Three ways Stittsville could benefit from more high-density development

It's much more complicated than that. Higher density neighbourhoods are less profitable for developers, because buyers are willing to pay a premium for detached homes. Hence, why they keep pushing sprawl, to let them build more SFD.

And as long as they keep doing that, the public won't adjust their tastes either.

Ever wonder why we don't see more luxurious townhomes or large family sized condos? The incentive to build this is insufficient for both developers and buyers.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I never said it was the rule. I just said that they are being built.

At rates that basically amount to greenwashing. Basically the equivalent of compliance cars.

And when they do build townhomes what do we see? Terrible urban design. Set far back from the curb. Huge driveway and garage dominate the front.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You don't need to have transit run on every single street. Using my original example, Maple Grove is within easy walking distance and the bus service could easily be upgraded along it.

By pedestrian friendly I assume you mean no access to shops within walking distance. That is an obvious flaw.

Transit friendly doesn't mean that transit has to run on the street. It means that transit can run through the neighbourhood unimpeded. This works when you stick townhouses along arterials. But our builders basically suck at building townhouses anywhere further in. That's what I was referring to.

Likewise pedestrian friendly doesn't just mean shops close by. It means making the street more amenable to pedestrians. This means smaller front lawns, narrower streets and either street parking or garages moved to one-way alleyways behind the house.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Glad you do. It seems a rarity on this forum. My comment wasn't directued at you but was indirectly in response to the following post:

I don't see how you take away from their comment that there's an assumption that everyone works downtown.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Nobody? Here is a post in another thread from just today:

Congrats, you found the extremist.

I think you can agree that most of us don't think everyone should live downtown.

But honestly, I fail to see why all of Ottawa's population could not live inside the greenbelt with proper planning and urban design. And I'm not talking about forcing everyone to live in condos either.

I'll be honest, Ottawa doesn't feel urban to me at all. Beyond the patch that is downtown, even neighbourhoods that Ottawans claim are urban are pretty damn suburban to me. Most of Ottawa is indistinguishable from Mississauga or Markham. So it blows my mind when people say that sprawl is not a problem or that there's no other way.

And most shocking is to come on this forum and to see people who supposedly support transit, defend sprawl and claim there's no other way. If this lot can't be convinced, then how can the general public?

Admittedly, I've traveled and lived in other parts of the world, so that might colour my perception. What I fear is sprawl continuing as the city grows and it'll become more suburban and bland with every passing year. As it stands I don't see Ottawa become a nice mid-sized city. I see it becoming a more expensive version of Winnipeg or a larger version of Barrie. Is that the future you guys aspire to?