Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
No, auto-oriented sprawl is pointless unless low density. I support high density suburbia if within an urban framework.
But high density, auto oriented sprawl combines the worst of both worlds.
|
So mixed-use high-rise buildings built right up to the sidewalk with street level retail is "auto-oriented" sprawl?
"Auto-oriented" is not a binary quality, nor is it synonymous with "post-war". Like, Calgary is more than 90% post-war, basically one big suburb, yet there is no US metropolitan area that can match its transit ridership other than New York. Is Calgary's auto-dependence really no different from Dallas or Houston? If Mississauga was all just Atlanta style sprawl, would it have less people driving to work (71.6%) than most US central cities including Columbus (79.1%), Kansas City (79.9%), Indianapolis (81.8%)?
Even in the US you have Las Vegas as one of the nation's transit leaders as well. Higher densities and half-hearted TOD measures are enough to give an almost pure post-war city the same transit ridership as Pittsburgh, twice the ridership of Cleveland, 5 times the ridership of Cincinatti.
There is really no such thing as "best of both worlds". Extreme low density sprawl affects the urbanity and parking demand in inner cities as well. With population of less than 100k in 1941, could Calgary's tiny core have developed into what it is today if it was surrounded by extreme low density? If we want to preserve the urbanity of our cities, if we want build upon them, it means stopping the suburbanization of our cities, and that means stopping the suburbanization happening right outside their boundaries as well. No matter how much you want to enforce those boundaries, they are ultimately just superficial.
Prev
Linear Mode
