I stayed at the hotel there once when passing through Copenhagen and really liked the built-form for a suburb. Yeah, a few blocks away and it's not nearly as pleasant and urban, but it's also not unpleasant as a pedestrian, and it's a bit unusual in having a commercial centre that is human-scale.
I stayed at the hotel there once when passing through Copenhagen and really liked the built-form for a suburb. Yeah, a few blocks away and it's not nearly as pleasant and urban, but it's also not unpleasant as a pedestrian, and it's a bit unusual in having a commercial centre that is human-scale.
That's a postwar extension of Amager, which is a working-class area with a relatively small pre-war core just south of Christianshavn. I think development was pulled south down Amagerbrogade in kind of a Yonge Street-type way even before the airport and transit due to the town of Dragør on the southern edge of the island.
Central Amager is quite good, although it has a Parkdale-but-not-hip kind of reputation (it is called Lorteøen or 'shit island' because it used to have sewage facilities).
Copenhagen did a lot better than Stockholm in terms of arranging its postwar buildings in recognisable forms. Stockholm is full of insane bullshit like this:
Still, though... there is always something temperamentally "small and grey" about postwar Europe.
...except for pretty much every developed and developing country in Asia.
I find a lot of the posts about this quite reductive and binary.
Western countries also went through a phase where millions of people from peasant classes moved from ample spaces in the country to more crowded spaces in the city, which were at first rather crappy but later become comfortable if not very spacious.
As the affluence of these people grew the space they occupied (both indoors and also outdoors in many cases) also increased.
It's too early to say if all countries will go through this phase as well but if they don't it's not necessarily proof that small dense spaces are more the nec plus ultra of human development than the opposite is. How things play out will also be dependent upon political, geographic and sustainability (both environmental and financial) factors. Not just preferences and desirability.
My own view is that more ample *quality* space does trump less ample *quality* space most of the time. Within reason of course. I am not talking about a 20-room mansion for four people.
I'll share more views on the definition of quality spaces (including location and surroundings) when I have a bit more time.
Not making any automatic assumptions about wealth and taste, but if one looks at the wealthiest people in society (both with good taste and tasteless we can safely say) in Canada they tend to live in places like Rosedale and Westmount. Which offer rather spacious digs both indoors and outdoors.
In Asian countries or a South American megalopolis like Sao Paulo, where it's impractical or impossible to have a Westmount or Rosedale villa so close to downtown, these people invariably have a (reasonably spacious) pied-à-terre in a tower in the dense heart of the city, and more spacious digs some distance outside of town.
This is typical densification of Vancouver's older mid century suburban areas, SFH is replaced by 6 story buildings, and smaller old stock SFH are replaced with maximum allowable ones.
Sorry for the thread derail, but in terms of visual appeal, this is a fairly nice condo building in downtown Ottawa that is considered to be architecturally decent:
Western countries also went through a phase where millions of people from peasant classes moved from ample spaces in the country to more crowded spaces in the city, which were at first rather crappy but later become comfortable if not very spacious.
As the affluence of these people grew the space they occupied (both indoors and also outdoors in many cases) also increased.
It's too early to say if all countries will go through this phase as well but if they don't it's not necessarily proof that small dense spaces are more the nec plus ultra of human development than the opposite is. How things play out will also be dependent upon political, geographic and sustainability (both environmental and financial) factors. Not just preferences and desirability.
My own view is that more ample *quality* space does trump less ample *quality* space most of the time. Within reason of course. I am not talking about a 20-room mansion for four people.
I'll share more views on the definition of quality spaces (including location and surroundings) when I have a bit more time.
Yes, I think that it's almost a universal human trait to prefer more living space to less living space, all else being equal.
I say *almost*, because there really are some people who prefer things like communal living, or being a material ascetic for philosophical reasons, but these people are usually a small minority - if given the choice - in almost all societies.
As people get wealthier, I think they demand more space. More properly, I think they demand increasing personal privacy for certain domestic activities, beginning with having access to a private bathroom rather than having to use a communal toilet, and personal amenities like being able to use in-suite laundry vs. a laundromat, or having a shower vs. having to visit a public bath, etc., etc. demand more space.
No civilization has ever raised its citizens' standard of living by cramming them into ever smaller spaces.
Every civilization that's ever progressed has done so by urbanizing, which has, by its nature necessitated smaller living spaces. The gains in quality of life achieved through the higher efficiency & economic productivity that density entails are greater than the quality of life lost by living in a smaller space.
Now, that's not to say that smaller spaces should be a goal to strive for, or that people don't prefer larger spaces, all else being equal - but that's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is eliminating single-family-only zoning regulations to allow for higher density mixed uses in residential zones.
This comes with a whole bunch of prospective quality of life gains for most people: lower costs of living (ie. middle class people can actually afford a living space larger than a shoebox condo), larger tax base for the municipality, more critical mass to support transit & local amenities. It just comes at a cost of the upper-middle class no longer being able to afford their god-given right to a single-family house in the middle of the city.
No civilization has ever raised its citizens' standard of living by cramming them into ever smaller spaces.
Pretty sure that the exact opposite of this is true. Standard of living correlates with increasing urbanisation. As others have said, being crammed together is not the goal, but doing so has made us richer.
Main Street in Nashwaaksis, as the Main Street Urban Design Plan came into effect. The Northside Market is moving into the building on the left.
2013
2019
The historic Gibson Roundhouse just off the north end of the Walking Bridge in South Devon
2009
2019
Just around the corner, a greenfield site once home to a railyard.
2013
2019
Former industrial land on McLeod Avenue near UNB
2009
2019
Connaught Street (I'm not happy about this one. The new buildings are nice but some semi-detached got torn down instead of any of the surrounding SFH)
2013
2019
Not exactly a neighbourhood, but the Corbett Centre
2009
2018
Currie Centre and Kin Centre at the foot of UNB
2009
2019
Street View doesn't go back far enough to show the nice public space that was here before.
2009
2019
Once again not a neighbourhood, but a change of character nonetheless.
2009
2018
Here's maybe the biggest one. The west end of Queen. What this doesn't show is that the Legion building on the left has been torn down and a 10-storey multi-use building is going up this year.
2009
2016
These are awesome! I was on Fredericton's PAC until 2014 when I moved away, and many of these were just a glimmer in many an urbanist's eye... great to see so many of them have actually happened! Will have to come back to visit sometime.
-
Awesome thread idea! Here's a few from Regina, between 2009 and the most recent Streetview (generally 2019):
Around Downtown: one road was made into a public square:
One major redevelopment of former church lands Downtown:
Just west of Downtown, one of the original exhibition buildings from the 1933 World Grain Exhibition made way for the home of the Riders, Mosaic Stadium:
And of course, lots of suburban growth:
Last edited by caveat.doctor; Feb 9, 2021 at 8:33 PM.
Reason: Typo
What we are talking about is eliminating single-family-only zoning regulations to allow for higher density mixed uses in residential zones.
This comes with a whole bunch of prospective quality of life gains for most people: lower costs of living (ie. middle class people can actually afford a living space larger than a shoebox condo), larger tax base for the municipality, more critical mass to support transit & local amenities. It just comes at a cost of the upper-middle class no longer being able to afford their god-given right to a single-family house in the middle of the city.
The thing is that 60 years ago we did encroach on single family home districts, and the results are very mixed.
I think this is because in a world where densification is allowed to proceed naturally based on land costs and no regulatory obstacles, single family homes in the most valuable areas will be replaced by lowest common denominator housing product that is one step up.
What we saw in the 60s was Victorian character neighbourhoods being wholesale-demoed to make way for midrise, car-oriented apartment blocks with gaping garage entrances and cul de sacs. So it was a net positive in terms of allowing more people to live in the same area in more modern housing, but a negative in terms of urban charm.
You're seeing it again in places like Waterloo where crappy bungalows are being replaced by crappy student apartment blocks. Again, better housing options, but not a great win for urban character.
I fear that if we declare open season on the yellow belt, we'll lose some of our last Victorian and Edwardian character neighbourhoods for absolute garbage. We might have to wait until we're architecturally mature enough or have found some miraculous way to lower the cost of sensitively handling heritage properties in new builds (for example, can we lower the cost of physically moving a Victorian house to the side of a property to permit a sensitive midrise addition). In the meantime, there are still a lot of old strip malls and brownfields near rapid transit stations in the inner suburbs that we can convert into new high-density urban neighbourhoods.
The thing is that 60 years ago we did encroach on single family home districts, and the results are very mixed.
I think this is because in a world where densification is allowed to proceed naturally based on land costs and no regulatory obstacles, single family homes in the most valuable areas will be replaced by lowest common denominator housing product that is one step up.
What we saw in the 60s was Victorian character neighbourhoods being wholesale-demoed to make way for midrise, car-oriented apartment blocks with gaping garage entrances and cul de sacs. So it was a net positive in terms of allowing more people to live in the same area in more modern housing, but a negative in terms of urban charm.
You're seeing it again in places like Waterloo where crappy bungalows are being replaced by crappy student apartment blocks. Again, better housing options, but not a great win for urban character.
I fear that if we declare open season on the yellow belt, we'll lose some of our last Victorian and Edwardian character neighbourhoods for absolute garbage. We might have to wait until we're architecturally mature enough or have found some miraculous way to lower the cost of sensitively handling heritage properties in new builds (for example, can we lower the cost of physically moving a Victorian house to the side of a property to permit a sensitive midrise addition). In the meantime, there are still a lot of old strip malls and brownfields near rapid transit stations in the inner suburbs that we can convert into new high-density urban neighbourhoods.
This is fair, and a very good point at the end as well. Which is why a massive expansion of the city's heritage inventory & protections would need to happen at the same time as liberalizing the zoning. As it stands now though, the odd Victorian and Edwardian are already being demolished for monster homes with the City's blessing.
What I really had in mind though were the city's bungalow belt neighbourhoods, which have been largely had their housing stocked demolished and replaced by new SFH over the past 20 years anyway. Stuff like this - in keeping with the spirit of the thread:
These are perfect opportunities to redevelop into multi-family instead of being limited to suburban-style SFH.
I'd also still like to see pretty strict zoning maintained in other ways though: say, strict 5 storey height limit and no land assemblies in the yellow belt, to preserve the overall character and intent of the neighbourhoods while still being able to sensitively add density.
Prev
Linear Mode
