HRM charter changes proposed to speed up housing builds

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

People flocked to Larry Uteck, and yes, even before there was a housing crisis. Obviously something is attracting people. I don't think evil develpers in any way forced anyone to live there. I, like ODM, am open to learning why it is that the area is considered to be unwalkable. Groceries are somehow complicit, apparently. One's ability to access groceries on foot is often cited as very favorable. I understand. I carried my groceries home from Sobeys for years back when I was single. It was great to leave the auto home and walk. But once I was two this quickly became unrealistic. Can anyone seriously suggest that grocery shopping for a family of four be accomplished on foot as a regular occurance? Anyway, if there is a holy grail of city design and a car-less Spring Garden Road is an absolute necessity, then make it mandatory and have it built first...rather than rebuild something later.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The first thing that would need to be done to make it walkable is to install a series of outdoor escalators to enable people to get up the long steep hill. Maybe HRM could get a package deal on them and do one on Duke St downtown as well.

Larry Uteck will never be a walkable community, take it from me. That goes in the same category as flying pigs.

I'm not inclined to walk in the area either. It's a long walk uphill, and it's pretty bleak with all the look-alike apartment buildings with large setbacks, though once you crest the hill (where there are more apartment buildings), it's a pretty flat run to 'shopping'.

What I'm trying to wrestle out with my questions is what makes a walkable community? And what makes this community specifically non-walkable?
Everybody is always saying density density density, but here is density and now it's bad because it's "not walkable". Why? Is it the hill? So "walkable" communities shouldn't be planned around hills? Then explain San Francisco to me.

Is it that there are large apartment buildings with deep setbacks and no little shopping plazas next door or at ground level? Is it too far from the grocery store? Or is it that there is car-related infrastructure present? For Bedford South, there are sidewalks that skirt the parking lot so you don't have to walk through a busy, dangerous parking lot to get to the stores. So what is it?

Is it because it is located in the "suburbs"? But then so is Dutch Village Road...

You, yourself, are always complaining about planners and 'planning dogma'... so I'm wondering why is this area a 'fail' and what should the planners be doing to make it a 'success'?

So...

Really, I just want to understand the urbanist mindset for such things.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You, yourself, are always complaining about planners and 'planning dogma'... so I'm wondering why is this area a 'fail' and what should the planners be doing to make it a 'success'?

Is this a comment directed at me? If so, I never suggested it could/should be a walkable community. That indeed is part of current planning dogma, which as you note, I do not support.

Your comment about San Fran is interesting, although in its present incarnation with housing prices that are totally out of sight and tremendous social ills that make venturing outside an adventure at many times, it is likely less walkable (or livable) than it used to be. The thing I remember about the older part of the city where people lived is that many were in mixed-use neighborhoods, so there were at least small markets and bodegas nearby where you could walk to obtain a few groceries and fresh produce. I have not been there in recent years though so I suspect many/most of those may have disappeared as property prices skyrocketed. Perhaps people living in those areas now use grocery delivery and eat out/order in most of the time.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Is this a comment directed at me? If so, I never suggested it could/should be a walkable community. That indeed is part of current planning dogma, which as you note, I do not support.

Yes, I was directing it at you because one who asserts that things are wrong must have a good idea of what it would take to make it "right".

Just to bring it full circle, I regularly read on this forum that "SFH bad" and "high density good". So Larry Uteck came up in this discussion as "bad", even though the east side of the street is almost completely made up of high-density housing.

I want to understand why people consider it "bad", and what could be done to make it "good". But... crickets. So then I'm wondering if it's just a personal preference thing or if there are some objective requirements that it's not meeting.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Your comment about San Fran is interesting, although in its present incarnation with housing prices that are totally out of sight and tremendous social ills that make venturing outside an adventure at many times, it is likely less walkable (or livable) than it used to be. The thing I remember about the older part of the city where people lived is that many were in mixed-use neighborhoods, so there were at least small markets and bodegas nearby where you could walk to obtain a few groceries and fresh produce. I have not been there in recent years though so I suspect many/most of those may have disappeared as property prices skyrocketed. Perhaps people living in those areas now use grocery delivery and eat out/order in most of the time.

I haven't been there in 7 or 8 years, but I recall it as being very walkable despite the fact that it is very hilly. I had the opportunity to talk with many locals who tended to walk or use transit rather than drive. And it's hilly.

So... I tossed SF into the deal as I'm not sure that "hilly" makes a place unwalkable.

Anyhow... it's no big deal, I'm just trying to understand the urban mindset and whether the like/dislike or success/fail metrics are objective, or just personal preferences.

Some comments seem to suggest that if an area is perceived as 'car centric' then it just can't possibly be "walkable". Objectively I don't see that as being true, so I'm trying to figure out if this is 'real' or just a case of tropes and dogma being repeated so much that they are being taken as fact.

So...

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, I was directing it at you because one who asserts that things are wrong must have a good idea of what it would take to make it "right".

Just to bring it full circle, I regularly read on this forum that "SFH bad" and "high density good". So Larry Uteck came up in this discussion as "bad", even though the east side of the street is almost completely made up of high-density housing.

I want to understand why people consider it "bad", and what could be done to make it "good". But... crickets. So then I'm wondering if it's just a personal preference thing or if there are some objective requirements that it's not meeting.

Generally speaking, walkable doesn't just mean that it's theoretically possible to walk. Simplistically, I would argue that walkable means that's it likely for an able-bodied person to choose to walk over driving.

Jeff Speck, who wrote Walkable City which is an excellent book, says you get people to walk by doing four things simultaneously:
- the walk has to be useful
- it has to be safe
- it has to be comfortable
- it has to be interesting

I don't think that Larry Uteck hits those criteria. As mentioned, it's a hill. The amenities along it are mostly concentrated around a single intersection. Despite there being all sorts of apartment buildings the density is fairly low. It certainly doesn't look very interesting touring it from Google Maps.

[ILoveHalifax]

I lived on Larry Uteck back about 8 or 9 years ago - Why? Our apartment was very large and nicely finished with high ceilings and balcony - lots of amenities.
We were in the Luxor and I found it quite comfortable to walk to Sobeys and for other needs in the area, I also found the bus to be a very pleasant ride to downtown just enjoying the ride along the Bedford Basin. AND the walk up the hill was not all that difficult - we also had deer that would show up to our balcony in exchange for an apple or two - life was good

No, I don't still live there but am enjoying life in south Florida

[Hali87]

Re: Larry Uteck - people think of the area as unwalkable because the distances between uses tends to be high (commercial areas are clustered and the relatively large amounts of open space place the average residential unit further away - a longer walk - from non-residential uses). The terrain also is fairly steep in areas which provides nice views but also makes walking a less attractive option for a lot of people, although pretty much all of Mainland Halifax/Bedford is like this.

Overall the development pattern reminds me a lot of Park West, which is actually a lot more walkable than people tend to realize because there are networks of pedestrian walkways connecting all of the cul-de-sacs and crescents. This means that pedestrians tend to have a shorter, more direct route than drivers. I haven't spent enough time in the Larry Uteck area to know if that's the case there but I would guess that it is. It seems like the alternative would be something like Fairview's layout, which I don't really find any more or less walkable than Park West.

Something that I think would go a long way would be to add small commercial buildings in the larger spaces between the apartment/condo buildings along Uteck as time goes on, or even things like tennis/bball courts, outdoor pools, etc. In reality I think the developers mostly assumed that no one would bother moving there if they didn't drive. It seems mostly geared towards people who want the 905-style suburban lifestyle in a brand-new unit with a nice view.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Jeff Speck, who wrote Walkable City which is an excellent book, says you get people to walk by doing four things simultaneously:
- the walk has to be useful
- it has to be safe
- it has to be comfortable
- it has to be interesting

I think he left out the most important one: it has to be short (relatively).

If you are lugging groceries or other heavy/bulky purchases, you don't want a 45-minute or longer hike.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, I was directing it at you because one who asserts that things are wrong must have a good idea of what it would take to make it "right".

It was someone123 and atbw who chimed in on that topic, not me, so I have no idea why you thought I would be able to offer you some sort of magical insight on their opinions. Ask them. I only offered the view that Uteck is not designed to be a "walkable community" whatever that means.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It was someone123 and atbw who chimed in on that topic, not me, so I have no idea why you thought I would be able to offer you some sort of magical insight on their opinions. Ask them. I only offered the view that Uteck is not designed to be a "walkable community" whatever that means.

Well, I asked everybody initially, and then happened to respond to your post, as it was strongly stated. Usually if I have strong opinions against something, I have an idea on how I would want it to be better, so I thought you might share some insight.

Anyhow, my apologies as I wasn't trying to single you out.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Generally speaking, walkable doesn't just mean that it's theoretically possible to walk. Simplistically, I would argue that walkable means that's it likely for an able-bodied person to choose to walk over driving.

Jeff Speck, who wrote Walkable City which is an excellent book, says you get people to walk by doing four things simultaneously:
- the walk has to be useful
- it has to be safe
- it has to be comfortable
- it has to be interesting

I don't think that Larry Uteck hits those criteria. As mentioned, it's a hill. The amenities along it are mostly concentrated around a single intersection. Despite there being all sorts of apartment buildings the density is fairly low. It certainly doesn't look very interesting touring it from Google Maps.

Thanks! I think those are reasonable requirements, and as expected a mix of subjective/objective.

Regarding density, I'm wondering how it compares to a more tightly packed neighbourhood of streets and SFHs. Surely it must be more dense than that, otherwise the only advantage is for those who prefer apartments/condos over a house with a yard.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I lived on Larry Uteck back about 8 or 9 years ago - Why? Our apartment was very large and nicely finished with high ceilings and balcony - lots of amenities.
We were in the Luxor and I found it quite comfortable to walk to Sobeys and for other needs in the area, I also found the bus to be a very pleasant ride to downtown just enjoying the ride along the Bedford Basin. AND the walk up the hill was not all that difficult - we also had deer that would show up to our balcony in exchange for an apple or two - life was good

No, I don't still live there but am enjoying life in south Florida

Thanks for your insight! That was sort of how I imagined it. That overall it didn't seem bad at all - maybe not as nice as a downtown area with a variety of shops and restaurants all within a few blocks, but not horrific either.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think he left out the most important one: it has to be short (relatively).

If you are lugging groceries or other heavy/bulky purchases, you don't want a 45-minute or longer hike.

Wouldn't that fall under comfortable?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Re: Larry Uteck - people think of the area as unwalkable because the distances between uses tends to be high (commercial areas are clustered and the relatively large amounts of open space place the average residential unit further away - a longer walk - from non-residential uses). The terrain also is fairly steep in areas which provides nice views but also makes walking a less attractive option for a lot of people, although pretty much all of Mainland Halifax/Bedford is like this.

Overall the development pattern reminds me a lot of Park West, which is actually a lot more walkable than people tend to realize because there are networks of pedestrian walkways connecting all of the cul-de-sacs and crescents. This means that pedestrians tend to have a shorter, more direct route than drivers. I haven't spent enough time in the Larry Uteck area to know if that's the case there but I would guess that it is. It seems like the alternative would be something like Fairview's layout, which I don't really find any more or less walkable than Park West.

Something that I think would go a long way would be to add small commercial buildings in the larger spaces between the apartment/condo buildings along Uteck as time goes on, or even things like tennis/bball courts, outdoor pools, etc. In reality I think the developers mostly assumed that no one would bother moving there if they didn't drive. It seems mostly geared towards people who want the 905-style suburban lifestyle in a brand-new unit with a nice view.

Thanks for the response. I'm getting the feeling that walkable means different things to different people. For example, if you don't mind walking longer distances and up/down hills then it may not be bad at all. If you don't mind that there isn't much to do or see between point A and B, then maybe it's OK. Of course anything walkable will be worse in winter conditions, so the level of sidewalk clearance/maintenance will be an important point as well.

So, really it comes down to which tradeoffs do you want to live with, I think. If you don't have a car, then maybe you have a little extra money to spend on rent/mortgage for a downtown apartment/condo that will be better situated for a car-free life. If you don't have the money to live downtown, then Uteck might seem more attractive for its nice apartments and relatively lower rent, but the walks are a little more difficult and you will have to rely on transit more, if you don't have a car. If you do have a car, it may actually be more convenient than living downtown without one - depends on your choices, I think.

Location also comes into it, as it always does with real estate. If you work downtown, then the most desirable place to live would be downtown. If you work in Bayer's Lake or Bedford/Sackville/Lakeside, then maybe a place like Uteck might actually work better for you - and you'd probably have a car anyhow as Halifax transit isn't really set up to work well for all places, just the most popular ones.

The more I think of it, the more it comes full circle and really it's all about personal choices and choosing the lifestyle that bets fits your wants, needs, and budget. Simple, actually. The posters who respond that it's bad, really mean that it's bad for them, as Arrdeeharharharbour points out - people have chosen to live there, so it can't be completely horrible or nobody would want to live there. ILoveHalifax confirms this.

OK, that helps. Thanks all!

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

.
Location also comes into it, as it always does with real estate. If you work downtown, then the most desirable place to live would be downtown. If you work in Bayer's Lake or Bedford/Sackville/Lakeside, then maybe a place like Uteck might actually work better for you - and you'd probably have a car anyhow as Halifax transit isn't really set up to work well for all places, just the most popular ones.

I was gonna add on this point about being able to walk to the grocery store; you likely won’t be walking there if you work downtown. In most of these suburban neighbourhoods with towers near grocery stores, the vast majority of residents will do their groceries by car on the way home from work negating the whole “walkable” advantage of being near these strip malls.

Design guidelines also don’t allow for more urban format stores at the periphery in order to accommodate this car traffic, which is why we get the whole strip mall experience as opposed to the more urban/mixed use forms. Even among mixed-use buildings, they may enhance the subjective experience of those walking but aren’t anchors that can convert more people to do so for most things in life. However, I do know place attachment can play a role in getting more people to use transit.

Of course good transit would allow Larry Uteck residents working downtown to walk from the transit station to their home, eliminating the need for large parking lots. That is far off. Ridership data from the Larry Uteck stations is not good. BRT can improve that but even then any semi-informed urbanist or planner knows that city-wide the car will remain dominant, even if transit ridership along Larry U quadrupled.

Walking from the bottom of Larry Uteck to Sobeys is a jaunt by the wildest stretch of the imagination, at that point people will either be driving or using transit, and those transit users will likely be captive transit users. Calling that beehive walkable is pure fantasy. You’re in the dead zone between the plaza on Larry U and Mill Cove! From Sommet to the plaza is more doable, but unless you’re a retiree who likes to go out on walks you’re unlikely to walk around for your daily needs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Walking from the bottom of Larry Uteck to Sobeys is a jaunt by the wildest stretch of the imagination, at that point people will either be driving or using transit, and those transit users will likely be captive transit users. Calling that beehive walkable is pure fantasy. You’re in the dead zone between the plaza on Larry U and Mill Cove! From Sommet to the plaza is more doable, but unless you’re a retiree who likes to go out on walks you’re unlikely to walk around for your daily needs.

So sure, walking from the bottom of LU is pure fantasy. Howabout from roughly the Southgate Dr through Starboard Dr area? Maybe more walkable and less fantasy?

Regardless, I think I get the point. There's also a difference between an urban fantasy and how most people (prefer to) live their lives. So maybe it's all fine anyhow.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So sure, walking from the bottom of LU is pure fantasy. Howabout from roughly the Southgate Dr through Starboard Dr area? Maybe more walkable and less fantasy?

Southgate is reasonable, but from the corner of starboard drive that’s a 26-minute walk or 8-minute bus ride (excluding the time you wait for the bus). That doesn’t factor in how you’re getting to work. If you have to live near starboard and don’t have a car, it’s probably because any walkable neighbourhoods were too expensive.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There's also a difference between an urban fantasy and how most people (prefer to) live their lives. So maybe it's all fine anyhow.

Those are one in the same. If an admiration for skyscrapers is Freudian, discussions on urban form could be considered Lacanian, that is desiring to be something other than ourselves. The status quo is as much a fantasy as potential futures. Neighbourhoods change even if their urban form stays the same, but whatever future city an urbanist fantasizes will probably unfold in a much different way than they imagine.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Southgate is reasonable, but from the corner of starboard drive that’s a 26-minute walk or 8-minute bus ride (excluding the time you wait for the bus). That doesn’t factor in how you’re getting to work. If you have to live near starboard and don’t have a car, it’s probably because any walkable neighbourhoods were too expensive.

Haha. My bad. I meant the cluster of apartment buildings on Starboard near the shopping plaza, not all the way down to Bedros/LU.

Geez, you missed an opportunity to point out that Larry Uteck extends all the way to Hammonds Plains Road, so that would be a one hour walk... definitely not walkable for most, unless you are a retired person or a younger person without responsibilities who likes to walk two hours every day to get your Popeye's Chicken (probably still faster than waiting in traffic at the drivethrough)... Conclusion: Larry Uteck Drive is not walkable!

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Those are one in the same. If an admiration for skyscrapers is Freudian, discussions on urban form could be considered Lacanian, that is desiring to be something other than ourselves. The status quo is as much a fantasy as potential futures. Neighbourhoods change even if their urban form stays the same, but whatever future city an urbanist fantasizes will probably unfold in a much different way than they imagine.

Good one! Nobody will ever be happy. This proves it.

Time to "walk away" from this one... (see what I did there?)

Edit:
I think perhaps I should add, for context, that I don't take many of these discussions too seriously. I have noticed that discussions on this forum regarding urban form usually end up following a certain format, with ideas about what defines the ideal urban setting typically repeated over and over, followed by a judgement of whether a particular landscape or neighbourhood form is "good" or "bad". I often find myself a little amused and tend to write with tongue in cheek a little, but also become curious as to where these talking points come from, and thus sometimes try to strip away the bluster and get down to the actual root of the matter - often with little success. So thanks to all who offered their thoughts above, but try not to take me too seriously when you read what I write as I am often typing with a smile on my face. The older I get, the more fascinated I become with the human condition and all the intricacies that surround it, and I suppose a good portion of my posts are reflections of this.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I was gonna add on this point about being able to walk to the grocery store; you likely won’t be walking there if you work downtown.

Well, it depends. In the '80s and '90s I lived in the DT south end and often walked for groceries or stopped in at a store on my way home. Back then there was a small grocer in the lower level of Spring Garden Place, on the Brenton St side, now long gone. That one was very useful for me as it was close by. Today Pete's would be a more than adequate replacement. For more general needs, Sobeys Queen St location wasn't too bad or too distant. If I felt more ambitious I could walk to the Superstores on Quinpool or Barrington, though those were much more of a hike. So for all of the criticism those supermarkets get on here from the urbanists for the footprint of their parking lots, they serve a very useful role for the residents DT. The footprint is what lets them attract customers from a wider area who cannot walk and therefore makes their locations financially viable. We do not and likely never will have the population density downtown to allow a NYC-style large-format store without parking to be viable from a financial POV.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We do not and likely never will have the population density downtown to allow a NYC-style large-format store without parking to be viable from a financial POV.

The alternative would be to provide underground parking. I've seen examples of that in Montreal and even Calgary.

The Barrington St. Superstore has enough room for a comprehensive mixed-used redevelopment and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if something were to happen on that site in the next decade or two.