Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
You think? The neighbourhood under discussion here is the densest in Atlantic Canada, with 7,000 people per square kilometre--nearly equal to Toronto's Trinity-Spadina.
And population density on the peninsula is about 3,000 people per square kilometer--not exactly Manhattan, but urban. And since there's so much open space like the Commons, Citadel, and Point Pleasant, etc., the effective density is higher. Outside of the northwest extremities, is there anywhere on the peninsula not walkable to a commercial artery?
|
Fair enough, but let me ask: why might this area be the most dense in Atlantic Canada? Is it because of the R1 zones the NIMBYs say must be defended from the encroachment of this horrible 13 story high rise monster, which will block out the sky, poison the waters, and salt the earth?
...Or because of proximity to SGR area, where you have intense density from high rise and mid rise development? And the surrounding R-3 or R-2A zoning which encourages high rise / high density development.
I would venture a guess that the latter is the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
I kind've agree and disagree with this--densification has definitely become the watchword, but most planning regimes on this continent, and Western Europe, have tried to balance densification with stable neighbourhoods. Not everything is fair game for redevelopment. This has its pluses and minuses, and definitely sometimes there's too much insistence on stability over change. (i.e., in this situation--I'm supportive of this proposal.) But the "natural" densification of housing stock has slowed enormously as urbanization has also slowed in the western world. If you look at growth rates for North American cities, they were growing at 20, 30%, 40% per decade in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most cities, even our prairie boomtowns, are now growing much slower than that, and the housing stock turnover has also slowed.
I've argued this before on this board, but the notion that the peninsula's houses will or should disappear and be replaced by mid-rise is contrary to economic and planning trends, not just in Halifax, but all over. Again, it's why those brownstones in Brooklyn that I keep referring to are stubbornly sticking around instead of being replaced by avenues of multi-unit buildings, which would technically be more "efficient." People really value the old vernacular housing in North America's urban cores. Gentrification has turned inner-urban neighbourhoods owner-occupied communities, rather than landlord-driven ones, and therefore much less prone to large-scale redevelopment.
This has its pluses: retaining the old architecture and sense of place, an urban intangible which I think is just as important as density. And it has negatives: the housing in question will become more exclusive and pricey.
But it doesn't mean sacrificing density. Instead, intensification is moving away from existing housing stock and being targeted to brownfield sites, under-developed commercial lots, major arterials, etc. There's room for tens of thousands of new peninsular residents just by developing these sites. One day, no doubt, we'll need to look at how to redevelop some of the existing R1 and R2 areas. But that's a long, long, looonng way off.
|
I agree and disagree with your response.
First off, I don't think Halifax and Nova Scotia, should take slowing urban development trends in other NA or even Canadian cities as a necessary comparator for our own policy trajectories (ie slowing intense densification), simply because NS/Halifax-- by virtue of economic history, city policy, and a federal/provincial politics oriented towards rural NS-- has not experienced the same level of urbanization over the last half century. Halifax and NS has, I think, suffered under far too much emphasis on "stability" and far too little on encouraging investment and development (in the right way, and places too).
Part of the problem you've nailed in passing: pricing. The Brownstones in Brooklyn survive because there are plenty of NY millionaires who pay millions to buy those Brownstones and keep them in the family (ie: not willing to sell). Housing is already too pricey and exclusive in New York, but at least Manhattan has some serious density to go with it.
Halifax... it's currently waaaay too expensive to live on the peninsula. Home prices and higher quality condos and rentals are outside the price range of most. One key way of changing this, is increase supply to bring down prices. That means allowing more density development downtown, even in communities that are situated near or around very dense zones. Yes, in R1 and R2 zones, particularly those like this, which are surrounded by R-3 or R-2A zoning which contemplates higher density development.
FWIW, I am certainly not saying that the "eventual" re-development of R1/R2 zones has to happen over night, but in the next 10 years, these communities will have to be re-zoned, and beyond 10 years, parts will have to be re-developed to allow more height and more intense densification.
We bash HRM for it's lame Regional Plans and then wonder why we cannot achieve even the lame lowballed urban growth targets. This is one of the reasons.
Finally, I *don't* think this city should be making planning decisions based on the input of a bunch of local homeowners will huge conflicts of interest. Is it not time to establish a municipal planning board, independent from council, to make these decisions quickly, efficiently, and in accordance to basic design requirements, not NIMBY whine?