Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
It's this "sky is falling" mindset - that everybody aspires to this type of urban planner nirvana - that frustrates me. I understand the need for tall buildings and density in the core of the city, but damn, not everybody aspires to live in an apartment or condo. It's great for those that do, but when urban enthusiasts appear to suggest that there shouldn't be areas for people to live in a house with a back yard, or shouldn't be able to use a car to get to where they need to go... in Canada of all places, a country with large land areas and not the type of crowding that has become necessary in European countries with small land areas and large populations... I get turned off.
But hey, that's just my  |
I agree with TheNovaScotian’s goal of limiting suburban development. I also agree with your frustration about the sky is falling mindset. Good planning shouldn’t be about any specific approach to spatial ordering. I think individuals with different perceptions of urban space should have the right to collectively change the city, since in return our city defines who we are. A good planner should work to realize those citizen ideas within the confines of local realities.
Back to houses versus apartments... Even large Chinese cities have suburban single detached homes (albeit for the wealthy), so I don’t think anyone is advocating for their elimination. I do think they should be considered somewhat of a luxury, but I picture that occurring gradually over an extended period of time. I also agree with someone123 that towers don’t necessarily eliminate all the problems associated with servicing suburban homes. Many of the suburban towers in HFX have essentially reproduced the same car dependent urban form, and not even with that much density since they’re so spread out from each other. I don’t think the root of the walkable question is towers versus houses.
Threaded Mode