Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
Good assessment. I'd divide neighbourhoods into three classes:
- The New Edinburghs: logical street layouts, mixed-use, built on the expectation that people WOULD walk for most purposes.
- The Kanatas: street layouts that only make sense to drivers, mass-segregated uses, main drags, "power centres" and office "campuses", built on the expectation that people WOULD drive for most purposes.
- The Overbrooks: logical street layout for the most part, semi-segregated land uses but still with main streets, built on the expectation that people WOULD drive for most purposes, but still laid out on the old walking principle.
We need to start building more suburbs on that third model. The official plans essentially call for that model. But we don't. Our developers don't propose them. City Hall doesn't insist on them. NIMBY chapters freak out if you propose building or retrofitting neighbourhoods to be more like them. And so Kanatas are all that ever gets proposed, approved, and built.
|
Good explanation and analysis on the different types of suburbs.
My question is what do you see as the actual advantage of model 3 over model 2? In other words let's say we plop an Overbrook layout between Kanata and Stittsville, or wherever else they are building new neighbourhoods, what advantages does this provide for transit uses etc.?
As for the previous (ACOttawa) comment about property values New Edinburgh. vs Overbrook. I don't think there is any evidence this has anything to do with the layout. New Ed. is expensive because it is next to DFAIT, PM, DG etc. and Overbrook is next to Vanier. As a result New Edinburgh is zoned with Rockcliffe for schools and Overbrook is with Vanier.
Threaded Mode