Quote:
Originally Posted by Copes
I'm curious what more could have been done, I'd be interested in your feedback. I'm not sure if you are referencing these guidelines and think that they aren't enough? Or maybe you were unaware of the Pleasantville guidelines.
http://www.clc.ca/sites/default/files/29...delines_2012-01-11_reduced_file_size.pdf
I thought the architectural guidelines for Pleasantville made it quite clear what sort of looks and feel the neighbourhood is going for. It explains what is and isn't allowed when it comes to roofs, windows, colors, etc. The landscaping guidelines I thought were quite detailed as well, going so far as to indicating that trees need to block views of asphalt parking lots, providing examples of types of trees, pathways and sidewalks, etc.
The guidelines for Pleasantville were unlike anything I've seen in a development like it before, so I was quite impressed. Perhaps not perfect, but personally, I really thought it was the right idea and an excellent precedent. It was rigid enough to make it clear the neighbourhood had a desired look and feel while still allowing developers the liberty to build the sorts of projects they are comfortable with and have built before.
Care to elaborate on what is lacking from the PDF I linked? As I said, I thought it was an excellent precedent. |
Sorry for the delay - I had a deadline.
Admittedly, I have actually seen this document before, but I never realized it was entitled Architectural Guideline. I thought it was just the Master Plan - I think they may be a little overly generous by calling it "Architectural Guidelines". Needless to say, I didn't realize the depth.
Nevertheless, perhaps I'm just uninspired by the guidelines, as they are not very ground-shaking. A master plan (and guidelines) like this are actually often required by City Halls in many cities across the country before developers can put a shovel in the ground. It's a very routine document (depending on the City). However, I can see it being impressive in the context of St.John's, disappointingly.
As I've said before, I think this is what needs to be done in more suburban communities like Paradise, Mount Pearl, CBS, Kenmount Terrace, The East End, etc. I think developers need to show how their development will integrate into the community, how they will design their houses and effortfully vary them, to show how it will enhance and support connectivity in the community on foot, bike and in car and to prove how it could be expanded in the future. Those are things that should be expected from new developments. The cost of developing such a Master Plan is a modest investment compared with the cost of actually executing a new sub-division. I think it's a cost of doing business which is fair and necessary to have a sustainable planning structure in the City/region.
I think that the real-estate and potential for Pleasantville is being wasted on this development. I see it as a glorified sub-division.
And despite having guidelines, some of them are actually the opposite of what urbanists would like to see - increased spacing between R2 housing to 1.5m from 1.2m (the City standard), increased frontages of single-detached to 15m from 12m (the City standard), etc.
So I would rather not let the impressiveness of the novelty of having a master plan obscure some of the not-so-helpful design approaches that have been taken.
Re. tress/landscaping standards - they are also routine for some developments. Suggestions of tree-types, tree positioning, etc. etc. should be an expectation from a developer. It just happens we have very minute standards for new residential developments in the region/City.
I simply don't like the concept of zoning. And I find this masterplan irrefutably reinforces the spatial segregation of the development into "this goes here and this goes here".
Quote:
|
"The Pleasantville Redevelopment Plan illustrates a clear intent in terms of siting the mixed use commercial buildings. In all cases a buffer has been outlined by way of either a parking lot, street, or landscape zone that provides adequate space between these larger and variably used structures and adjacent detached, semi- detached and townhouse residences (Figure 1). This intent must be respected."
|
I just don't believe that that kind of reasoning is beneficial and it doesn't promote a vibrant, dynamic urban neighbourhood. Mixed-use development can never be understated. A convenience store or shop of some kind or restaurant doesn't need to be mitigated by way of "a parking lot, street or landscape zone"
We could argue about this development all day, haha. I think we both agree that it's setting a precedent, even if a small one, on what should be expected with developments in St.John's, and that's
always a good thing. Of course, it's doing some pretty great things for walkability and circulation and density that all sub-divisions should also be doing (namely in the suburbs), but I think we're selling ourselves short if we think that this development is the best we can do in such a great location in proximity to downtown St.John's!
I couldn't agree more that it's a good precedent.
Prev
Linear Mode
