What makes a city attractive ?

Colin May · #1 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 1:33 AM**

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ity-attractive

Worth reading
WARNING : Nothing over 5 storeys

counterfactual · #2 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ity-attractive

Worth reading
WARNING : Nothing over 5 storeys

The European norm of achieving density but not necessarily building tall, is only possible if you are very efficient with existing land use. Paris, Amsterdam, other cities achieve this, because of historically very efficient land use and density in downtown cores. We don't have that.

The peninsula has very good density in certain areas (like around SGR), but bad in other areas -- large parts of the south and north end are filled with single unit buildings under 5 storeys. The peninsula has bled population since the 1950s, mostly because many of these houses contained large families but over time, the children moved away, and parents or lone parents stayed. And because there has been very little development on the peninsula in decades that would increase supply and thus reduce the cost of rent and buying on the peninsula, those houses haven't been replenished with new families, as they seek lower costs in the suburbs.

So, to make up for a lack of density in such important areas in the core, we need to make up for it with greater density in others. One way of achieving that, is building up.

New York City is an amazing city not just because it has "order", but because it has ultra-density with massively tall buildings, ensuring there are plenty of people to fill the streets, creating vibrant streets and lively, growing, neighborhoods.

worldlyhaligonian · #3 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:07 AM**

Nothing above 5 stories = no eiffel tower, no la defense

Even Amsterdam has an office area with height around the Zuid area.

Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

Drybrain · #4 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Nothing above 5 stories = no eiffel tower, no la defense

Even Amsterdam has an office area with height around the Zuid area.

Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

Nouvellecosse · #5 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

Yes that's always been an issue in most of NA - at least in our contemporary times. In most of Europe's history, tearing down buildings and even whole neighbourhoods when the need warranted it and replacing with something denser was easily accomplished since a) it was needed before the age of highrises and automobiles, and b) there was authoritarian, top-down rule. Nowdays, as a city grows, the oldest parts of a city cannot simply replace all it's buildings with something larger. It can only replace buildings here and there after the odd building gets in poor shape and is allowed to be torn down or is lost to fire. So parts of many cities that are the most central and most sought-after are also surprisingly low-slung.

Of course in some cases it's possible to add floors to buildings to increase density or to preserve the facade and integrate it as part of a larger building. But these things all have limitations.

worldlyhaligonian · #6 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

Give me a break... the whole "build somewhere else" idea for Halifax... i.e. the Cogswell interchange is a deferral of not allowing any height in Halifax... the excuses are deferred.

La Defense is where office density exists. Don't be ignorant.

Drybrain · #7 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Give me a break... the whole "build somewhere else" idea for Halifax... i.e. the Cogswell interchange is a deferral of not allowing any height in Halifax... the excuses are deferred.

La Defense is where office density exists. Don't be ignorant.

Please don't be so aggressive. Or if you're going to be aggressive, at least be comprehensible as well--I don't know what part of my post you're taking issue with or why.

eastcoastal · #8 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

...
Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

God gets what he wants, height limits be damned

worldlyhaligonian · #9 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

God gets what he wants, height limits be damned

Height for Jesus.

Let's tear down all the churches taller than 5 stories in Halifax... they are toooo tall, think of the children!!!

Nouvellecosse · #10 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:47 AM**

If you watch the video, the concepts are a lot more nuanced than that and it does discuss situations in which larger buildings are appropriate. I'm not sure I totally agree with all of its stances, but it isn't terribly crazy either.

eastcoastal · #11 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:37 PM**

What makes a city attractive? Recent/local experience might suggest Killer Stairs™

someone123 · #12 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 5:38 AM**

The building heights are just one of many points, and many cities out there manage to be successful with taller buildings. They start by giving New York and Paris as examples of cities people love.

I think the parts about vibrancy/activity and unique local flavour are a lot more important than building heights. I really like newer buildings that respond to the rest of the city in some way in an intelligent way and relate well to the neighbourhood they're in or take good design cues from popular building styles without senselessly mimicking other buildings. I'd say that the Vic and the new library are two good examples of this. The low points of new development are the generic suburban-style buildings. They are not as common on the peninsula as they used to be but they still happen.

The North Common is a good example of where more vibrancy is/was needed, and where there's already been some success. The oval is something that it turns out lots of people like to use and so it has helped to populate that space and make it more useful to residents of the city. I think it would be great if the city continued along this path, re-evaluating public spaces and adding more amenities to them rather than leaving them as bleak monuments to an abstract concept of "open space".

beyeas · #13 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 7:23 PM**

Not sure if this had already been shared, but just in case I wanted to share this article from Spacing Atlantic. An excellent breakdown of the discussion around density, opposition to density, why density is not bad, and also why not every development is good.

I especially liked the line "For specific developments, the number of people inside is at best a good thing and at worst irrelevant. Buildings must be judged in terms of their quality, not the people." Interesting argument as well around the common complaint that we should not have more density because there is already not enough parking and roads, which he countered with the fact that there are 25,000 fewer people living on the peninsula compared to the '70s, and yet we now have more traffic and are being asked to build bigger roads.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/08/10/oppose-building-not-people/"

OliverD · #14 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyeas

Interesting argument as well around the common complaint that we should not have more density because there is already not enough parking and roads, which he countered with the fact that there are 25,000 fewer people living on the peninsula compared to the '70s, and yet we now have more traffic and are being asked to build bigger roads.

Interesting. What caused that shift out of the peninsula? I assume at some point the population of the peninsula began growing again?

someone123 · #15 Posted **Sep 1, 2015, 12:51 AM**

Interesting article. It is great that there are more voices now and a lot of them are articulating a different vision beyond the usual anti-development angle.

I disagree with a couple of small points and the conclusions though. I don't think the city should stop allowing plan amendments until the Centre Plan is done. We don't really know how long the plan will take to develop or how successful it will be, and once that's done there will be other plans and other calls to put things on hold. The city needs to keep moving forward and part of that involves making sure that planning applications go through. The amendments and development agreements are just a normal part of the process.

Similarly I think the argument about how buildings need to be the "right" buildings at the right quality level is deeply problematic. For any given building there will be a percentage of people who don't like it, and there will always be ways that new buildings can be improved. The cities with the best quality buildings have lots of development and support industries where developers and architects can thrive. Coming at this from the negative perspective of wanting to "weed out" bad buildings is not going to be effective. The city needs to say yes to developers while nudging them in the right direction.

someone123 · #16 Posted **Dec 19, 2015, 8:47 PM**

This photo from Hali87's thread made me think of an interesting aspect of Halifax building stock:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

Queen Street 4 by Hali87, on Flickr

A lot of people, particularly in Halifax, believe that wood is worse than brick or stone, but I disagree. It is really more mutable and flexible. If an area declines, it starts to look worse much faster. If an area develops, however, it's easier to extend, and this is happening in a lot of central Halifax, as shown in the shot above. If done well it would be great to see old wooden 2-storey houses converted into 3 and 4 storey buildings in a sympathetic way. It's good from a density perspective but it's also realizing some of the potential that never materialized in the city up until now. Halifax wasn't a city with large areas of medium density neighbourhoods in 1920 but it could be one in 2020.

The North End would be a lot more vibrant if about half of the old saltbox rowhouse building stock were extended upward at the same time as new buildings were constructed on the empty lots.

beyeas · #17 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 3:22 PM**

I was wandering around Soho, Greenwich Village etc last week while my wife shopped, and came across this Home Depot at basically West 23rd & Broadway in the Flatiron District. Now THAT is urban format. Talk about a gorgeous looking facade for what is fundamentally a warehouse store!

https://goo.gl/maps/mYNVSj9zmTU2

As a side note... ran into "George Bluth Sr" in the Apple Store in SoHo (or maybe it was Oscar?!

Hali87 · #18 Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:06 AM**

A number of factors - new housing and easy mortgages became common so a lot of new housing was built off-peninsula (and the fact that it was new had appeal). Several neighbourhoods were redeveloped in urban renewal schemes that didn't necessarily replace the net loss to local residential (example: residential north Downtown was razed for [non-residential] Scotia Square, most of the residents were displaced to Mulgrave Park, which was surplus war-era military housing). Families shrank in "presence" as the younger generation tended to buy new property in the suburbs. Also there has been a growing proportion of students on the peninsula (and likely military) not all of whom are counted as residents in the census.

Keith P. · #19 Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 1:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

(example: residential north Downtown was razed for [non-residential] Scotia Square, most of the residents were displaced to Mulgrave Park, which was surplus war-era military housing).

No. Mulgrave Park was built in the '60s as new public housing, as was the trend at the time to build housing projects. It was a hellhole for years, as those type of developments tended to quickly become. Not sure what it is like now.

OldDartmouthMark · #20 Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 1:59 PM**

Yeah, actually a huge area of the downtown/north end was razed for what amounted to urban renewal, the planners' vision of the future as viewed through 1950s rose-coloured glasses.

It encompassed all the area of Scotia Square, Cogswell, and the north end of Barrington to accommodate the ill-fated Harbour Drive project. This subject has been covered in great detail in other threads on this site.

As far as I know, the people displaced by this project just moved elsewhere, wherever they could. The public housing projects like Uniacke Square were created to house those displaced when the city took over Africville, if I'm remembering this correctly. Not sure where Mulgrave Park fits in to all of this, though.