Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
Personally I think heavily treed mid-density can provide the same thing and offers it to more people. And unless a city is predominantly higher density lowrise with everything being 2-4 story multi-unit like in parts of Europe or the eastern half of Montreal, there really needs to be mid-rises mixed in all across the city. It's the only practical way to have efficient land use and to make the city more interesting. I think people forget that higher density areas can be incredibly lush and green if done well. There just needs to be a road verge that's wide enough for mature trees, along with other landscaping like vines and shrubbery. And let's face it, tower-in-the-park developments can actually offer more ground-level space than single detached house areas.
To me, areas like these seem very lush and green despite not being low density.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/38auFoKeLkEQku7B7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2NadbeEVPbi7KJAs8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/38auFoKeLkEQku7B7 |
Having lived in Europe for many years (I was born in London) and Montreal for two I'm very familiar with that type of built form. Although many aspects of them are appealing, I'd be horrified if Canada tried to re-make its cities into the uniformly dense cities that dominate Europe. The
diversity in built form AND differing densities is one of the key reasons I've chosen to live in a Canadian city over a European one.
Secondly, it's folly to boil everything down to the most efficient use of land. There are intangibles one can't put a price tag on. We'd be making an irreversible mistake if we destroy our low density neighbourhoods in the name of some land efficiency equation or to satisfy people's obsession for all things European. Canadians fetishize Europe but the homogeneity of European cities can become monotonous and insipid quickly. Living in European cities is very different than visiting them for 3 weeks. I'd take Toronto's built form over that of Paris 7 days/week and it's not a close call.
When it comes to low density neighbourhoods, I sense lots of Canadians have become resentful, angry, and vindictive. They just want to bulldoze all of it. For some, if they can't have it, no one can. Low density neighbourhoods are absolutely a less efficient use of land but destroying them would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can absolutely have the best of both worlds: medium/high density TOD but also (unlike many European cities) a bucolic break from it every 2-3 km.
The juxtaposition of high density with low density is a wonderful thing, a breath of fresh air, and a blessing. Hopefully, Canadians wake up to that before they destroy what they have. I'm not hopeful though. Canadians are famously self-deprecating and often blind to what they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giallo
Agreed.
The Westend on Vancouver's downtown peninsula is a great example as well. It's one of the densest neighbourhoods in North America, and it's very lush and green.
|
No one is disputing that. The issue is when you make every place in a city the same. I've spent many years in Europe, lived near Le Plateau in Montreal, and stayed in Vancouver's West End. As nice as they are you absolutely long for some variety, a break from the same thing. Le Plateau/West End are great but I wouldn't want Montreal/Vancouver to look like that from one end to the other. Juxtaposition and variety are highly under rated. Montreal and Vancouver are great for their variety. They have high density, medium density, but also low density. They all matter.
It's human nature to covet what you don't have but Canadians' made rush to re-make everything like a 'Le Plateau/West End' is folly. Be careful what you wish for. Once it's gone, it's too late to undo.
Prev
Linear Mode
