HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2021, 8:03 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Why is it so hard to get it right, or at least, get it better? We've got thousands of examples of historical great main streets, and many contemporary examples of new such main streets from Europe and Asia. Why is almost everything so fucking ugly at worst to soul-sucking mediocre at best?
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2021, 8:36 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
I think Confederation Parkway in Mississauga is a decent attempt, not trying to replicate the past. Of course, you can see my Cooksville Village thread to see typical attempts in the 60s and 70s.

The suburbs don't grow organically, one small lot at a time, so they won't have the look of traditional main streets. If they try too hard to be something they are not, they can look stupid, and they won't have their own identity. That goes for anything in art, really. It's like Mick Jagger singing in a fake southern US accent, Rolling Stones don't sound like a band from the UK, their music just has little of its own identity. Trying too hard to replicate the past, places like Oakville and Markham are the architectural equivalent of the Rolling Stones: above average, but in a fake and contrived way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2021, 10:56 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
I think the prevailing discussion on this subject is facade treatments and architecture, but it also is about real estate value, development cost and market expectations.

The traditional main street of fine grain narrow lot buildings within their own intensity of architectural design is a remote possibility at the moment, except in large cities.

Right outside my window in Chicago are wall to wall new and old buildings with commercial on the ground floor and 1-4 levels of residential on top. The reason they all look different is because they contain different housing units with different floorplans designed by different architects hired by different developers. Inherently that leads to building diversity. In this case it doesn't need a planning recommendation, it's happening on its own because large lots are scarce.

Where real estate is much cheaper and more available, developers may have half to a whole city block to work with. What was once parceled out to maybe 10-20 owners is now one big super block, a building with level floorplates and a central elevator core. The result is expected, a large horizontal low to midrise block with a facade applique

Finally there's market expectations. More focus on the interior but with big windows looking out that ultimately stretch the perceived scale of the building. Walls become less load bearing so there's less expression of structural or performance elements, like pilasters, columns, archways and cornices. All the focus has been turned to the inside with upgraded finishes for a better living / working experience. Pretty much the only dynamic expression you see these days are balconies or sun shade elements or angled parapet. The rest is just a clad box. Making it nice brick with some limestone accents won't do much to help it appear less coarse grain. So I don't necessarily think materials are the main reason, it's the size of the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 5:39 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It's a shame too since there actually some genuinely vibrant, interesting retail nodes in the suburbs. Stuff like this: https://goo.gl/maps/cGUPUcRTc6Sb9YYp8

Now just imagine that but laid out in an urban main street format instead.






See, these ones are pretty good. But that's because they're not what I'd call "McMain Streets" - they're legitimately dense, urban developments with retail that responds naturally to their context. McMain Streets are more about creating the illusion of a quaint main street environment without the fundamentals to support it (ie. density, organic growth) - essentially a quasi-urban theme park in the suburbs.

Those ones are in the suburbs but they're not suburban.
Well Oak Park isn't that dense. SmartCenters is probably going to hold on their power center development of single story box stores + large surface parking for a while, depressing the residential densities considerably. The vacant lots will probably fill up first and even that will take a while.

Meanwhile, the "McMain Streets" in North Oakville are in neighbourhoods that are already almost build out, and as a result have about twice the population within a 5-10min walk. And the few remaining undeveloped lots have 10 storey condos planned for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 5:57 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Planning in Markham and Oakville is based very heavily on New Urbanism. One of the main principles of New Urbanism is mimicking the look of historic neighourhoods, and I think that's what this thread is really about.

What is known as "smart growth" today is actually a combination of New Urbanism and transit-oriented development. Both New Urbanism and TOD each have their own flaws, and taking the best from each approach is what smart growth is all about. Better than adhering too much to one approach, and the faux-historic thing is probably a good example why.
I think the neo-traditional architecture is falling out of fashion in Oakville though.
I'd say about half of the high end custom homes being built in SE Oakville are with modern architecture now, this is an example of the most basic/popular design:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4749...7i16384!8i8192
There's some more interesting new modern homes too but streetview hasn't visited them yet.

You also have entire subdivisions of modern style townhouses being built in North Oakville.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4914...7i16384!8i8192
They're also starting to get peppered into the SFH subdivisions now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4849...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 7:16 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
I think Confederation Parkway in Mississauga is a decent attempt, not trying to replicate the past. Of course, you can see my Cooksville Village thread to see typical attempts in the 60s and 70s.

The suburbs don't grow organically, one small lot at a time, so they won't have the look of traditional main streets. If they try too hard to be something they are not, they can look stupid, and they won't have their own identity. That goes for anything in art, really. It's like Mick Jagger singing in a fake southern US accent, Rolling Stones don't sound like a band from the UK, their music just has little of its own identity. Trying too hard to replicate the past, places like Oakville and Markham are the architectural equivalent of the Rolling Stones: above average, but in a fake and contrived way.
A lot of this comes down to basic geometry.

Lets say you have two cities where the existing densities are uniform and new development is built at the edge in perfect concentric circles to the same density as the existing stuff.

City 1 is basically like a small dense city
Radius: 1 mile
Density: 30,000 ppsm
Population: 94,248

City 2 is a big (somewhat) sprawling city like Toronto (or early 1900s London)
Radius: 15 miles
Density: 10,000 ppsm
Population: 7,645,380

Lets say both cities grow by around 7% every 5 years (this is approximately Toronto's rate of growth).

The dense little city would have to expand its radius by about 185 ft every 5 years, so 1-2 city blocks per decade. That means it can basically grow a lot at a time.

The big city however would have to grow 2800 feet in every direction every 5 years, which is a couple city blocks per year. That's much more likely to result in mass produced housing developments.

That being said... Australia cities are growing just as fast as Canadian ones but they are much more likely to have homes individually designed, even in new subdivisions. So if Canada can adopt that culture, and combine it with more flexible zoning that allows a wider variety of typologies, I think you could still get some variety.

And you can still have a pretty vibrant appearance at the storefront level even with homogeneous buildings, like the 2-3 storey 60s-70s stripmalls of Toronto/Mississauga. I think it's part giving time for business owners to customize their storefronts, part just age, since new condos also have pretty boring retail (bank + Starbucks + nail salon).

Also I think a lot of potential more varied development lies with redevelopment of residential areas. Residential lots are quite small, and especially if the increment of redevelopment is relatively small, large scale lot consolidation isn't really viable. It's also a process that will be undertaken by a wide variety of developers, and covering a longer time span, thus encompassing a wider range of architectural trends, and sourcing materials from a wider variety of suppliers. And if we're talking about SFH/rowhouse neighbourhoods with relatively high homeownership rates, it'll be more difficult to consolidate properties than if the land is mostly owned by commercial landlords.

Even redevelopment of post-WWII residential areas could work under certain conditions (ex first ring post-WWII neighbourhoods or areas near rapid transit).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 5:43 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post

Theres a UK version


Lichfield Cathedral by John Steedman, on Flickr
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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