Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Or stone buildings like this:
Source
Getting back a bit of the feel of what this area used to be like was not on the planning radar at all. The process seemed to be based around traffic planning and later some consultants implementing modern planning theory and people grappling with accounting and public finance questions, with major points reported by the media being cost recovery and maximum permitted height and density. "Will this new area be appealing" was farther down the list or maybe that question was implicitly deemed to be about density limits and greenspace percentages. What do you mean you don't like it? We exceeded the tree planting quota by 34%.
|
Honestly, I was a little pessimistic about Cogswell in the past, but I’ve actually lately become more optimistic. To be clear, I don't credit council with this--the planning process and public conversation around it was as rudimentary and uninspiring and technocratic as Someone describes. But there have been recent developments that make it seem much more likely that we're backing by happenstance into a better situation.
First, city council recently kicked off a process to implement more controls around building design, seeming to belatedly recognize that we were risking a situation in which we basically just built a dozen podium towers flanking overly wide roads (a problem which lots of people were talking about years ago, and which was mostly fobbed off dismissively at the time). City council is now looking at selling off development blocks in smaller parcels, and creating additional guidance around design and frontages to create a better pedestrian experience. This is belated—but better late than never.
Second, council also jacked the density to about 200 people per acre, which is around Jericho Lands levels, and hopefully means not just a livelier area but more money to work with.
Third, while quality of local development still lags the showpieces in larger cities, it also continues to improve—the projects at Queen’s Marque, Richmond Yards (not the tower design but the street-level space), and the new phase at King’s Wharf all show a marked improvement over even the recent past. And this will be seen as a place to show off.
Finally, I’m also not too bothered by that one suburban office-park looking grassy area; it’s basically just a glorified traffic island with a pedestrian/cycling cut-through, next to the real public space, Granville Square, which is unbuilt. A depiction of that area is around
4:30 here. The renderings of the district basically show what’s currently being built there, and the rest of it looks much better. (Even in that little pocket park, the quality of finishings are quite nice in person.)
A lot remains to be seen, but I think I think there’s a very strong chance this comes together with a high quality of public space and a reasonably good architectural level as well. What’s regrettable is that there wasn't a better planning process from the beginning, that really might have been more ambitious from the get-go. I certainly don't expect any historic reconstruction. And the street network is still oversized. Though I suppose the upside is lots of space for cycling lanes and dedicated transit right of ways. Still, it'll be more boulevards than intimate urban streets.
Prev
Linear Mode
