Quote:
Originally Posted by condo_dreams
A novice topic that I would like to understand: the reason for all this debate about density and in what form it should be allowed, etc. I see similar debates in most threads (eg: 111 West) and it seems like there are certain places where certain amounts of density should be allowed/wanted/restricted, and I'm not sure I understand the rationale. I suspect it has something to do with the likelihood for this 'density' to lead to further development, retail/commercial, etc, etc... any truth to that?
Any input would be welcomed.
|
Density and intensification certainly are topics which play very prominantly on this forum. I think it's safe to say that the majority consensus is pro-intensification, but we have many different opinions as to what is the appropriate level or nature of that intensification. In the wider community, the predominant sentiment seems to be more one of apathy and/or pro-status-quo.
What's the idea behind intensification/promotion of greater density. I would suggest that there are two primary modes of favourable argument:
1) Short-term localized benefits: exactly what you mentioned - when there are more residents in an area, this better supports the existing nearby businesses, community organizations, cultural institutions, etc, merely by having more people in closer proximity to them. This helps make areas more livable, arguably safer (more eyes on the street), more exciting, and more vibrant. By accomplishing these things, development can improve life even for those already living in these areas.
2. Long-term esoteric benefit: This is that question of "what type of a city (or world) do we want to live in". Dense cities, where people are able to walk to everything they need, or use efficient public transit to easily get where they want to go are more livable, human environments. They have a lesser overall impact on the environment. Increasing density is about city-building as a whole, and determining what type of place Ottawa could and should become.
Aside from a general sense of prefering the status quo, the three more principled arguments against intensification are:
1) Destroying unique communities/environments: there is a fear that greater density can overwhelm a community and counteract elements that make them unique. There is no doubt that there is merit to arguing that wrongfully executed intensification can cause problems - large new buildings that have no interaction with the street can actually destroy the urban fabric. Overly tall, not-set-back development on main streets for example can create a 'tunnel' effect. It is argued that binging in new retail can hurt old, longstanding businesses.
2) Anti-libertarian nature of intensification: people prefer single family homes because they are the only natural way of raising families, etc. People want cars, and preferably more than the number of people in their household. This is good, and intensification is unnatural, therefore should not be encouraged, as everyone should have the equal opportunity of pursuing their 'American Dream' lifestyle.
3) Destruction of the Commons: undeveloped property somehow belongs to all, not the owner, and to develop it is to destroy a community resource.
While these issues tend to crop up everywhere, there are some threads on this forum that specifically deal with these subjects, which you may wish to check out. Two that come to mind are the "Intensification Forum" thread, and the "Build up or out?" thread.
Prev
Linear Mode
