HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2020, 6:08 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Yep. Like everything else Canada seems to always be a decade behind. So more TOD but not enough of a focus on walking and biking. One would think one bike parking spot per unit would be mandatory in most condos by this point, especially for buildings not right in the urban core.

The focus on TOD and not enough on walkability and mixed use is still maddening. It's great that you can live near a station. But still sucks if you don't have a grocery store, gym, medical care, schools, etc. within walking distance.
BC, specifically Vancouver, actually does very well in this aspect of urban living. The city of Lougheed, Coquitlam Central, Burquitlam, Metrotown, and Oakridge are all TOD's (whether proposed or constructed) that are good examples of developing mixed use neighbourhoods that emphasize walkability.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2020, 7:37 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Port Moody proposal looks great. A true, complete urban community. Often times, TOD ends up being towers in a park, towers in a parking lot; very isolated communities that still require cars for basic things like grocery shopping. That's what worries me about some of Ottawa's TOD proposals along suburban stretches of the O-Train lines.
I don't think cities like Ottawa Calgary Edmonton have the critical mass required for TOD like you see in Vancouver. That's why I suggested to not bother with towers and build more affordable ground oriented and wood-frame low rise close to transit stations. Even Surrey can't seem to get momentum going. There has been Skytrain in Surrey for over 20 years, and in all that time there has been relatively little tower development. A few towers spread out all over the place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2020, 8:28 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
Towers are great fodder for this forum. But there isn't much that is redeeming about them from an urban design point of view. I'd go so far as to say that allowing taller and taller towers is making developers and urban planners extremely lazy. They get density and profits without actually improving quality of life
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2020, 8:57 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
They are lazy and complacent. Suterbrook Village in Port Moody is a decent example for a tod neighbourhood, but it’s all about cutting as many corners as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2020, 10:01 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I don't think cities like Ottawa Calgary Edmonton have the critical mass required for TOD like you see in Vancouver. That's why I suggested to not bother with towers and build more affordable ground oriented and wood-frame low rise close to transit stations. Even Surrey can't seem to get momentum going. There has been Skytrain in Surrey for over 20 years, and in all that time there has been relatively little tower development. A few towers spread out all over the place.
I can't speak to Calgary and Edmonton, but Ottawa has gone from 0 to what looks like plaid speed in the last half decade. They are planning insanity like a 65 storey building where the Confederation Line and Trillium Line meet (that was scaled back I believe to 50ish). And several 30+ storey buildings in what are very suburban areas:

https://obj.ca/article/toronto-based...ir-lrt-station

https://obj.ca/article/real-estate/d...-and-apartment

I live near the second one. The intersection has two gas stations, a Chinese restaurant and a chip wagon. Across the street from it is an 8-storey apartment building.

Just a reminder, this is for city that just broke a million, with a metro population of 1.3 million.

Ottawa was just late to the condo boom. And now seems to get the worst of it. Extremely tall buildings. Cheap design and cladding. And no real community and planning integration. The majority of city councilors in Ottawa being bought by developers probably has a lot to do with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2020, 12:14 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
BC, specifically Vancouver, actually does very well in this aspect of urban living. The city of Lougheed, Coquitlam Central, Burquitlam, Metrotown, and Oakridge are all TOD's (whether proposed or constructed) that are good examples of developing mixed use neighbourhoods that emphasise walkability.
Vancouver has done a very good job at TOD but again none of the ones you have mentioned are pedestrian friendly. Yes it is nice to have more of the community amenities but when it's all said and done these are nothing but glass boxes connected to a mall at a transit station. One very notable exception is NuWest which promoted downtown living but not at the expense of the original district. It has retained it's character.

This is one of the problems with building transit and selling the land around it to the highest bidder...........McCommunity, just add money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2020, 7:58 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Vancouver has done a very good job at TOD but again none of the ones you have mentioned are pedestrian friendly. Yes it is nice to have more of the community amenities but when it's all said and done these are nothing but glass boxes connected to a mall at a transit station. One very notable exception is NuWest which promoted downtown living but not at the expense of the original district. It has retained it's character.
Incorrect a lot of them are indeed pedestrian friendly.

City of Lougheed is constructing restaurants, shops, cafes, patios, grocery stores, fitness centres, etc all within a walking distance from each of the towers that it encompasses.

Oakridge includes a park, updates and upgrades to the mall, office space, small healthcare facilities, and a community centre all within walking distance to the residential towers in its immediate area. And outside of this development, the Oakridge area surrounding the redevelopment around the station, will include many more towers that will be within a walking distance to the mall and to the skytrain station.

The Coquitlam City Centre plan is also planning on office developments, mixed use buildings, street-retail, and even an entertainment district. I can't seem to find a detailed map of the proposed downtown but these elements are conveying that they are aiming to make this pedestrian friendly and transit oriented.

Brentwood is another example of a mall that is being opened up with a plaza, surrounded by towers. It is again a place to work, live, and enjoy by providing all of the amenities that one could want within their neighbourhood as this project also commands an office development

I can't seem to find a neighbourhood strategy on Burquitlam but I know that it has a lot of towers that are popping up independently that have mixed use podiums. Clarke Road and Como Lake road are very wide roads so I can see how it would impact walkability but the developments around it are certainly allowing for a more mixed use neighbourhood within its vicinity eliminating the need for a vehicle.

The only one that I could maybe throw you a bone for is Metrotown. It is a big mall and Translink really missed the mark on integrating a pedestrian walkway to the mall from the skytrain station. But for all of the people that live in the towers surrounding it, it is actually reasonably walkable. It would just be crossing Kingsway (another wide street) that would be a bit of a pain in the ass. In fact Burnaby has already installed a pedestrian overpass over Kingsway to allow for better access.

Moving out of Burnaby and Coquitlam, Surrey has also done a splendid job of making Surrey Central walkable. The library, new city centre, the plaza, and the immense amount of towers that will be going into Surrey's core will change it for the better and it will become more and more walkable since those residents in the towers will be in close proximity to everything they need. Again, KGB is a wide arterial that cuts the area in half but the King George redevelopment is also introducing a lot of these same elements just across from Surrey Central. And Surrey just has an un-heeded amount of potential in its core that we will see realized starting with the Georgetown development. If I were to compare Surrey to another Canadian city, Mississauga is actually coming to mind since they also have large road infrastructure that fractures their city core.

Just because you view these developments as glass boxes ontop of malls, it doesn't mean that it doesn't provide the residents that live in these glass boxes all of the amenities that one would need in their immediate neighbourhood. I agree that they are a little copy + paste but that doesn't mean that the formula doesn't work. Now what I am not going to do is dive into how most of these projects were sold in China before they were sold to Canadians but I digress...

My point is that your perspective on downtown vibrancy is a little jaded by current architectural and neighbourhood planning trends. You have to remember that in the past we were building wider streets like KGB and Kingsway to accommodate cars and so that does impact walkability. Places like New West and downtown Vancouver were established before the golden age of motorized vehicles and so they don't have wide arterials in their core like Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Surrey does. Vancouver and New West are also much older than all of the other municipalities so you have more natural architectural diversity that makes the cities more visually engaging. Don't get me wrong, I am not against faux heritage developments either as I also need a break in architecture . However the current BIG developments that I have broken down will end up contributing to walkable neighbourhoods in each of their perspective municipalities because they provide everything that a resident needs without the resident having to travel outside of their neighbourhood. And this includes residents that are already living in the areas that these developments are taking place in.

Civic vibrancy doesn't happen overnight either. These projects are amazingly well designed neighbourhoods that are an excellent starting point for other developments to piggy-back off of their success - and take the neighbourhood to the next level. Vancouver and New West were well-established before TOD was even a thing hence all of the heritage buildings in their respective cores. Out of all of these projects that I listed, only Brentwood and Surrey Central are operating. And even at that, Brentwood is still opening stores in its mall so it does indeed take a while for a certain level of vibrancy to be achieved.

To find some more common ground: yes, I agree that all of the projects are indeed cut + paste; and I would even go as far to say that their concepts are now outdated since the pandemic happened. My criticisms with these developments (outside of the fact that they all sold to China before Canadians) is that they do not include spaces for small businesses which I think bring real soul into a neighbourhood. Southern parts of Main Street are very lively and one of those reasons is because it has a bustling small business scene where human creativity can really shine as a way to make a living. A lot of these bigger neighbourhood projects also don't include a higher percentage of rental opportunities either.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.

Last edited by scryer; Aug 8, 2020 at 8:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2020, 9:09 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
To find some more common ground: yes, I agree that all of the projects are indeed cut + paste; and I would even go as far to say that their concepts are now outdated since the pandemic happened. My criticisms with these developments (outside of the fact that they all sold to China before Canadians) is that they do not include spaces for small businesses which I think bring real soul into a neighbourhood. Southern parts of Main Street are very lively and one of those reasons is because it has a bustling small business scene where human creativity can really shine as a way to make a living. A lot of these bigger neighbourhood projects also don't include a higher percentage of rental opportunities either.
The copy paste thing is a major problem at street level. The retail units leave no opportunity for creativity. The facades are so restrictive that no small business wants to be in them, which equates to dead sidewalks. Part of what makes using public transit so use-able in the City of Vancouver is that it is combined with good retail streets.

The Marine Drive developments once again proves that it is imperative that these developments include retail units that allow for visual variation. Have a look at the businesses it has attracted. There's 4 banks, nail salons, mattress store, insurance offices, and of course a Shoppers Drug Mart. For restaurant options you have 6 or 7 chain fast food places, and a couple real restaurants.

Not a real exciting place.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.21060...4!8i8192?hl=en
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 12:32 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,341
There's also a pub/liquor store, movie theatres, fitness centre medical/massage therapy clinic, grocery store, optometry and dental clinic. It's not exciting by any means but it has the basics covered. A lot of the needs of residents can be accessed from an easy elevator ride and that is the point. I used to have to drive to each of these places individually before I moved here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 12:42 AM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
The copy paste thing is a major problem at street level. The retail units leave no opportunity for creativity. The facades are so restrictive that no small business wants to be in them, which equates to dead sidewalks. Part of what makes using public transit so use-able in the City of Vancouver is that it is combined with good retail streets.

The Marine Drive developments once again proves that it is imperative that these developments include retail units that allow for visual variation. Have a look at the businesses it has attracted. There's 4 banks, nail salons, mattress store, insurance offices, and of course a Shoppers Drug Mart. For restaurant options you have 6 or 7 chain fast food places, and a couple real restaurants.

Not a real exciting place.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.21060...4!8i8192?hl=en
It's definitely a lesson that Metro Vancouver (and any other Canadian municipality copying these forms of TOD) will learn in the next 5 years when these places start operating. Our next generation of town centre developments will hopefully be more inclusive of small business spaces - assuming that they make it beyond the pandemic.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 5:37 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
The problem is that there will not be any unique businesses because the developers don't want them. Remember these are developments built by and for developers and they are only interested in the profit motive. There won't be any businesses in that you won't find in any suburban area in the country.

Don't get me wrong. These are transit friendly and it is encouraging to see more of them make efforts at being more than just towers at a mall with things like open and civic plazas, community services, and more entertainment options. It is also far superior to having buildings scattered all over the damn place.

Unlike the new Port Moody proposal that think is very promising, however, the main attraction and centre is still just another mall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 6:37 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
Incorrect a lot of them are indeed pedestrian friendly.

City of Lougheed is constructing restaurants, shops, cafes, patios, grocery stores, fitness centres, etc all within a walking distance from each of the towers that it encompasses.

Oakridge includes a park, updates and upgrades to the mall, office space, small healthcare facilities, and a community centre all within walking distance to the residential towers in its immediate area. And outside of this development, the Oakridge area surrounding the redevelopment around the station, will include many more towers that will be within a walking distance to the mall and to the skytrain station.

The Coquitlam City Centre plan is also planning on office developments, mixed use buildings, street-retail, and even an entertainment district. I can't seem to find a detailed map of the proposed downtown but these elements are conveying that they are aiming to make this pedestrian friendly and transit oriented.

Brentwood is another example of a mall that is being opened up with a plaza, surrounded by towers. It is again a place to work, live, and enjoy by providing all of the amenities that one could want within their neighbourhood as this project also commands an office development

I can't seem to find a neighbourhood strategy on Burquitlam but I know that it has a lot of towers that are popping up independently that have mixed use podiums. Clarke Road and Como Lake road are very wide roads so I can see how it would impact walkability but the developments around it are certainly allowing for a more mixed use neighbourhood within its vicinity eliminating the need for a vehicle.

The only one that I could maybe throw you a bone for is Metrotown. It is a big mall and Translink really missed the mark on integrating a pedestrian walkway to the mall from the skytrain station. But for all of the people that live in the towers surrounding it, it is actually reasonably walkable. It would just be crossing Kingsway (another wide street) that would be a bit of a pain in the ass. In fact Burnaby has already installed a pedestrian overpass over Kingsway to allow for better access.

Moving out of Burnaby and Coquitlam, Surrey has also done a splendid job of making Surrey Central walkable. The library, new city centre, the plaza, and the immense amount of towers that will be going into Surrey's core will change it for the better and it will become more and more walkable since those residents in the towers will be in close proximity to everything they need. Again, KGB is a wide arterial that cuts the area in half but the King George redevelopment is also introducing a lot of these same elements just across from Surrey Central. And Surrey just has an un-heeded amount of potential in its core that we will see realized starting with the Georgetown development. If I were to compare Surrey to another Canadian city, Mississauga is actually coming to mind since they also have large road infrastructure that fractures their city core.

Just because you view these developments as glass boxes ontop of malls, it doesn't mean that it doesn't provide the residents that live in these glass boxes all of the amenities that one would need in their immediate neighbourhood. I agree that they are a little copy + paste but that doesn't mean that the formula doesn't work. Now what I am not going to do is dive into how most of these projects were sold in China before they were sold to Canadians but I digress...

My point is that your perspective on downtown vibrancy is a little jaded by current architectural and neighbourhood planning trends. You have to remember that in the past we were building wider streets like KGB and Kingsway to accommodate cars and so that does impact walkability. Places like New West and downtown Vancouver were established before the golden age of motorized vehicles and so they don't have wide arterials in their core like Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Surrey does. Vancouver and New West are also much older than all of the other municipalities so you have more natural architectural diversity that makes the cities more visually engaging. Don't get me wrong, I am not against faux heritage developments either as I also need a break in architecture . However the current BIG developments that I have broken down will end up contributing to walkable neighbourhoods in each of their perspective municipalities because they provide everything that a resident needs without the resident having to travel outside of their neighbourhood. And this includes residents that are already living in the areas that these developments are taking place in.

Civic vibrancy doesn't happen overnight either. These projects are amazingly well designed neighbourhoods that are an excellent starting point for other developments to piggy-back off of their success - and take the neighbourhood to the next level. Vancouver and New West were well-established before TOD was even a thing hence all of the heritage buildings in their respective cores. Out of all of these projects that I listed, only Brentwood and Surrey Central are operating. And even at that, Brentwood is still opening stores in its mall so it does indeed take a while for a certain level of vibrancy to be achieved.

To find some more common ground: yes, I agree that all of the projects are indeed cut + paste; and I would even go as far to say that their concepts are now outdated since the pandemic happened. My criticisms with these developments (outside of the fact that they all sold to China before Canadians) is that they do not include spaces for small businesses which I think bring real soul into a neighbourhood. Southern parts of Main Street are very lively and one of those reasons is because it has a bustling small business scene where human creativity can really shine as a way to make a living. A lot of these bigger neighbourhood projects also don't include a higher percentage of rental opportunities either.
this is a few years old but is a good view of Burquitlams plan. Burquitlam has always been pretty walkable, has had a decent walk score, even before the skytrain came through. Many grocery stores, restaurants etc. All these developments are doing a nice job at adding more retail and service spaces as well as an influx of people. I have noticed this summer, every night there are loads of people going for walks in the neighbourhood and onto North Road etc. Much more than ever before in the 30 years I've lived out here, its nice to see. Traffic is also getting a lot worse but it will work itself out I think.

older:
Video Link


newer:
Video Link
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 9:00 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,844
Burquitlam/Lougheed plan seems pretty decent. Ottawa completed TOD plans for Stage 1 Confederation stations early on when it was u/c but I don't remember a whole lot of consultation. Lots of high-rises, but not a big focus on walkability/commercial and services. From what's been approved so far, outside the core area, town-centre type developments with retail and services has not been the focus of developers. Mostly towers in a park, almost car-centric.

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...an_main_en.pdf

For Stage 2, other than again core stations (Bayview, Gladstone, Carling, a little around Sherbourne and New Orchard (two new stations within urban pre-amalgamation Ottawa), Lincoln Fields, spearheaded by the owner, not the City, Algonquin College/Centrepoint area), we haven't seen much planning, if at all. Nothing south of Dow's Lake along Trillium (beyond 2006 plans before the previous N/S rail was cancelled), nothing in Orleans (tough around long-established low density, but park-and-rides, a huge mall, vacant lots and a traditional main street have not been seriously considered for TOD master plans) or the west-end (big box stores near Queensview).

Stage 3 planning for TOD has been even worse. Kanata (a little over 100,000 residents), up until now, has been the most successful suburb (Ontario side of the NCR) in establishing its own employment base, with a high-tech hub in Kanata North consisting of 23,000+ high-paying jobs, and thousands of others near the Palladium Office Park (near the Sens rink) however, transit is still very much suburb-downtown focus with few options to get around the job rich suburb itself. The city has finalized the O-Train route though the area, yet is still approving low-density suburbia around the approved rapid-transit route.

In Barrhaven at least, we've been seeing some decent TOD around the Transitway (built around 2010) and the City is establishing a proper town-centre plan to replace the current big-box-stores and associated parking at its core.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ttee-1.5370302
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2020, 12:30 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,844
Proposal near Trim station, the Confederation Line's eastern terminus (2024). Very preliminary. A very "towers in the park/parking lot" type proposal.

The architect didn't bother adding Trim station on the submitted material; it will be at the intersection of Trim and Highway 174 (except that the intersection will be moved and the station will not be accessible north of the highway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
The owner of the subject property at 1009 Trim Road is proposing the development of a mixed-use building consisting of two (2) high-rise towers connected by a four (4)-storey podium containing ground floor commercial uses. Combined, the proposed development would include approximately 524 dwelling units and 565 square metres (approximately 6,082 square feet) of commercial space. The proposed towers can be described as follows: Tower B1, proposed to be located near the southwest corner of the subject property, close to the intersection of Jeanne-d’Arc Boulevard North and Trim Road, would be 28 storeys in height; and, Tower B2, proposed to be located to the northeast of B1 and connected to B1 via a 4-storey podium, would be 32 storeys in height.

Amenities and commercial uses are proposed to comprise the ground floor of the 4-storey podium. Potential commercial uses could include a convenience store, microbrewery, restaurant, spa, retail space, or grocery store. Commercial uses will be oriented toward the subject property’s front yard in order to provide greater access and visibility to members of the public. A commercial parking garage use is also being sought through the proposed zoning given that the Trim LRT station will be the eastern terminus of the City’s LRT system and there may be a desire to increase the park and ride opportunities in the immediate area.

Ground floor amenities will be generally oriented toward the rear of the subject property in order to provide privacy to the building’s residents and to capitalize on views toward the Ottawa River. Additional outdoor amenities are proposed to be provided at the rear of the proposed building, particularly in the northwest area of the subject property.

The second potential phase of development would add a third tower to the eastern end of the subject property, which would be connected to Tower B2 via a second four-storey podium. It is anticipated that the third tower would be 30 storeys in height and accommodate an additional 271 units, 477 m2 (5,134 ft2) of commercial, and 244 parking spaces either underground or in a podium.


Architect: RLA Architects

Development application:
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__B026NT

Location:






Siteplan:




Conceptual renderings:







Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 9:28 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,844
Major TOD project led by Ottawa Community Housing at Gladstone/Corso Italia station.

Quote:
Mathieu Fleury
@MathieuFleury

Building GREEN Housing!

The development
@OCH_LCO
at #GladstoneVillage is an ideal candidate for a Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas (GHG) District Energy System.

Learn more (item 10): https://och-lco.ca/wp-content/upload...Package-EN.pdf



4:09 PM · Nov 30, 2020·Twitter Web App
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 10:59 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
Honestly, the feds need to start making TOD commitments a stretch condition of transit infrastructure funding.

Dunno what can be done to prevent this gross development though, with towers in a park near a freaking transit terminus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 12:36 AM
foolworm foolworm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Honestly, the feds need to start making TOD commitments a stretch condition of transit infrastructure funding.
The only thing that Canada needs less than Transit-Oriented Development is Development-Oriented Transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 12:45 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
The only thing that Canada needs less than Transit-Oriented Development is Development-Oriented Transit.
Debatable. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to substitute sprawl. At least with some TOD standards that can be marginally minimized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 1:23 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,844
I agree. To get funding for a transit line, areas served should meet density targets (existing urban neighbourhoods) or be zoned for density (through master planned urban density nodes, none of these car oriented towers in a parking lot). Governments talk big on 15 minute neighbourhoods but don't do much to actually implement them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 2:25 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,383
Although you've gotta be careful with high density zoning. Very long story short, when you zone high, the cost of land shoots up. As the profit of any project becomes increasingly marginal, and both sellers and developers will sit on the land for years, awaiting the highest possible yield. This is especially true of concrete and steel construction (anything above 5-6 storeys) because it's ridiculously expensive to build. It makes more sense to sit on valuable land with potential (which you can sell or leverage) than to build something that might lose you money.

TLDR: Zoning for high density as of right slows development to a crawl. You've removed the regulatory barriers, but put up a higher economic barrier to development.

This isn't a problem in an area which is already built up because it's already built up. But when you're starting from scratch (as we are in most non-downtowns), developing at a rate of 2% of lots per decade (a generous rate) is too slow to make the place feel not completely empty. But 5-6 storey zoned-areas develop at 10-15% per decade, enough to fill an area in a reasonable time drame. You end up in this counter-intuitive situation where zoning for 40 storeys gives you more potential density, but lower actual density than 5 storeys. There are exceptions to this, such as when a developer buys the land before it gets rezoned, such as Ottawa's Zibi.

Before Cities zone for height, they need to make sure that it's going to serve to actually build.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.