Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal
I'm not picking on you - its all good - I find this interesting, but also important. My question now would be: why? How far north & again why?
Until we become full of high-rises (Brazil), we have clusters, which we experience through their concentration and limited extents - there are edges to all of them. Maybe, in agreement with your sentiment, there are some edges that are natural (defined by something: geography or otherwise) and some that are not. Maybe? North of Kingsway to Grange is already in the high-rise zone; with lots of room for more height/density. Is that your sense . . . that it is naturally waiting for such a completion?
It's always interesting to look at how we reason about these kinds of things, and where psychology and things like taste and even arbitrary concerns enter into what is ultimately a rational, technical, economic, and political process: that of planning, planning bylaw, building bylaw, zoning, development, design and construction.
When people express their 'feelings' about this kind of thing, my ears prick up. So I ask. Municipal legislation includes the provision to act with discretion to protect or promote 'the values of the community.' Cities rely on this for way too many things. Cities rely on this without ever once giving a scientific determination of their citizen's will. And, things like feeling, the taste of a design panel, the will expressed through limited and faulty public consultation, and endless other instances, become powerful voices in what should be a rational discussion.
One of the biggest headaches professionals have with their contacts with municipal governments and the public is the extent to which 'opinion,' and other arbitrary determinations are forced upon decision making. It a fascinating, but frustrating part of how we build our cities.
So, when someone says "natural" about something which in fact is without a defined 'nature,' it can be surprising how quickly it can turn into a substantive statement with surprising force.
What are your thoughts? Anyone.
|
I don't want to speak for him, but I imagine he meant it from the perspective of the City of Burnaby's own plan for the 'Metrotown Downtown' plan which envisions high density and highrises clustered around the Metropolis Mall area between Willingdon to the west and Nelson Ave, to the East, and between Kingsway (or Grange) to the North and Beresford to the South (though ideally a block or two north and south of these streets respectively) and then tapering downwards as you head out from the 'core'.
At the moment it seems as though most of the denisification is occurring south of the mall and more specifically just south of Beresford.
Which is all well and good and probably even 'natural' (if you excuse the pun) and to be expected when you account for the fact that that's the side of the mall through which the Skytrain line runs and where the Skytrain station - a major focal point for densifying - lies.
However, given that Kingsway (and north of the mall) has traditionally had the more commercial, if not retail, 'feel' of that segment of the Metrotown area, the expectation was that there would be more densification and redevelopment north of the Mall - or at least more than we're currently seeing.
And while a large bit of that will change when (if?) Concord Pacific's Sears redevelopment project eventually goes online and those towers get built on that north surface parking lot, there are still large tracts of land and property, just north of Kingway itself with lowrise (as in single or double storey) old retail buildings that are badly crying out for redevelopment and decrying that aspiration of the city to develop that part of the street to be a true "Downtown"core.
Right now it seems like you just randomly go from the very modern (Sovereign and the old Best Buy complex just west of Nelson) to shops that look like they're straight out of the 1960's or 70's (the current and soon to be Ex-Earls, the Save-On strip mall, etc.).
Even the parts of Kingsway that have office buildings and did indeed seem to have been planned and built out as a sort of downtown or commercial district of sorts (like the area around the old MetroVan offices), there's still an old and almost dilapidated feeling to the buildings currently there, and nothing implying that this area is supposed to be the 'Downtown' or future-downtown of the entire Burnaby region.
At the moment it almost seems or feels like THE "Downtown" is happening or sprouting at the "back" of the mall rather than "in front" of, and adjacent to it, on Kingsway.
I guess you could say that Kingsway itself feels like it should have more primacy in terms of development and the level of densification happening to it right now (than is happening) to really achieve that 'Downtown' center that the city is aspiring to.
Obviously there's nothing quintessentially "Natural" about any of this, since we're effectively talking about City and urban PLANNING, which entails actual design and intention, rather than any form of organic development. But these "Natural" feels we have of areas tend to be elicited from what the planning either aspires to or seems to be driving towards, so that's where people take their cues from.
At least that's my reading of it.
Prev
IMG_5946
IMG_5952
IMG_5957
IMG_5962
IMG_5964
IMG_5947
IMG_5950
IMG_5971
IMG_5977
IMG_5981
IMG_6023
IMG_6025
Linear Mode
