Quote:
Originally Posted by Copes
Not trying to be nitpicky, I just like keeping the conversation going. I find I learn a lot when we get into these things... 
Pleasantville's average planned density is the same as downtown St. John's current density, based on a few sources I have reviewed. I am assuming, then, that the inefficiency you're talking about isn't density so much as land use? Would you like to see Pleasantville more dense than downtown?
If we're saying it is less efficient than downtown than we can't be talking about density, since planned density in Pleasantville mimics the density of our core. |
The density figures you're quoting are grossly misleading though. They account for the 10 story towers and the 6-story buildings which will all be residential. Downtown has very few of these types of residential buildings. So Pleasantville has very dense portions in the master plan and then very low-density areas. In fact, most of the land being used would be classified as low-medium density (that of a sub-division in the suburbs).
Let's compare it with downtown. Downtown has no high-rise residential towers (yet). In fact, it has very few (perhaps no) 6-story residential buildings either. Instead, houses are tightly packed so that it's still high-density however.
Apart from densities - downtown is a mixed-use zone with industry, commercial and residential all occurring harmoniously. Pleasantville is, first and foremost, residential with some half-assed stand alone commercial units. Granted, having anything at all is a bonus, but it's incomparable to downtown's activities.
I don't think we can just look at densities and say "gosh, we've done a good job with this one" - Pleasantville has more surface parking lots, more spacing between houses, more ancillary open spaces than downtown. It's just the residential towers which give the area a good density, on the whole. So should we be applauding the master plan for it's high density or the high-rises? Surely, it's only the latter which makes Pleasantville different from any other suburban sub-divison.
But in addition to misleading densities, it's also inefficient land-use. Urban neighbourhoods should be mixed use and dynamic with numerous activities taking place: work, live, play, study, relax, etc. etc. Unfortunately, the primary activity in Pleasantville will be living - it's essentially a dormitory neighbourhood. To me, that's inefficient land use.
And unlike Signal previously suggested, I am not convinced that the master plan leaves much room for in-fill projects in the future. So it's unlikely the density will evolve much beyond what the masterplan outlines.
Finally, another comment regarding the Building Principles and Elements section of the Guidelines - it's true that they are articulating details of the development - but to me, instead of supporting variety and dynamism, this actually pushes the development toward a more homogeneous and generic neighbourhood in terms of controlling the design of projected bays, trim, window placement, eaves and soffits, verandas, etc. etc. By controlling all these variables, the houses will just look more and more alike. I don't know if this is the way to go but instinctively I think it's too controlling. I, personally, think there should be attempts at promoting legitimate variety. Here, I think it's kind of a construed variety which is less appealing.
Prev
Linear Mode
