Ironstone Condos | HT ?? | 16 FLRS | U/C

[raisethehammer]

you obviously didn't read all the comments. I said clearly that this is better than sprawl.
But to market it as some King and James, urban lifestyle choice with no footprint in a joke.
As big a joke as the stiffs in Summit Park putting up signs about 'country living'.
How can we NOT make fun of these losers.
Just advertise what you're building - "a cookie cutter townhome in a sprawling burb."

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

--since this is a Forum about lifestyle choices--

Huh? forum.skyscraperpage.com defines it differently...

Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I should have clarified--I think it is fair to say that the urban/suburban/exurban/rural choice is a theme which underlays the discussion here. I have been reminded on several occasions that this is an "urbanist" Forum--therefore, despite the fact that skyscraperpage.com defines the Forum differently, I think it is fair to say that this particular Forum focuses on urbanism/sprawl/sustainability--at least that's how I see it. When was the last time a suburban construction project discussed here was not accompanied by a barrage of posts about the negative effects of sprawl?

Therefore mark, while your intentions may have been noble, I dont quite understand the point of your post in the context of the discussion at hand.

[raisethehammer]

there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

[adam]

This post is lucky to exist here at all. Skyscraper? Not even close! Even a 2 year old can see that!

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

Do you have anything of value to contribute? We get it, you hate suburbs; move along.

[markbarbera]

I think what is at issue is how critisicm of an urban design that promotes sprawl is consequently interpreted as an attack against an individual's lifestyle choice. It's akin to health professionals warning of the dangers of smoking, then subsequently having the warning portrayed as an attack on the smoker's lifestyle choice.

[highwater]

Thanks for nailing it, mark. Snide remarks about suburbanites' physiques, restaurant preferences, etc. etc. are tedious and insulting, but no one should have to pretend that sprawl isn't anything other than environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Those are your opinions highwater. I have my own. The thing is, around here, you're all in, or your not. I have never advocated unchecked sprawl continuing for time eternal--there are environmental concerns--as there are in urban areas. The social unsustainability is an opinion and a worldview I don't happen to share--it is, in fact, merely a theory.

Quote
I think what is at issue is how critisicm of an urban design that promotes sprawl is consequently interpreted as an attack against an individual's lifestyle choice

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not interpretation--as stated previously, suburbanites are frequently referred to as overweight, lazy, Tim Hortons drinking, Kelseys-eating, losers, easily duped, socially unconcious people who kill their trees with driveway salt--shall I go on? These are not reasoned arguments--they are intended as insults--so please, do not blame me for misinterpretation--it is what it is. It is a generalization that is no more appropriate than a poster saying the city is filled with crime, drugs, prostitution and criminals. It's rhetoric, it's pointless, it does nothing to advance the discussion/debate.

Quote
there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

Essentially what I "interpret" here is that all of your opinions should go unchallenged. Also, remind me of the last time I "bashed" urbanism...I can't seem to recall.

You will find no one who is a bigger supporter of the city than I am--I just don't choose to live there--those two things can be reconciled--I refuse to accept the notion that I'm either "for you" or I'm "against you"...it's insulting and condescending.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by highwater

Thanks for nailing it, mark. Snide remarks about suburbanites' physiques, restaurant preferences, etc. etc. are tedious and insulting, but no one should have to pretend that sprawl isn't anything other than environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable.

these are not 'opinions'.
They are fact.

[adam]

Taglines like "country living" and "community" are often used to advertise new residential developments. You can't build a community in a matter of months, you can't raze the earth and expect country living next to the highway.

If you have a valid point that contradicts this, please present it and I'll humbly accept that I'm wrong.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Again, I don't remember specifically saying I was somehow in favor of sprawl. What I do remember saying is that people make differing choices about the environs in which they choose to live--and blanket assumptions and generalizations have no place here if you're trying to make a reasoned argument. If all you want to do is come here to beat your drum, that's a different story.

adam--your points are well made. In reality, "community" is something that is person-generated, and not a function of geography. The prevailing wisdom here would suggest that people who live in "sprawl" are socially isolated, car-dependent and sedintary--while those who live in an urban setting (the enlightened) enjoy closer relationships with neighbors, are more active and don't drive (and certainly don't use salt on their driveways). My point is merely that it's the people who make up the community that decides what happens there--not where someone lives in relation to density. I spent several years living in a high-denisty, high-rise condo--the appeal being every bit as contrived as saying Summit Park is "country living". In that particular community I was surrounded by a fairly homogenous group of people who sought the condo lifestyle--they are the very people I see folks here saying we should attract to live downtown. Almost without exception my neighbors were elitist, isloated, suspicious of any newcomers to the building--and despite living in the city--with a large nature trail system running through the property and being adjacent to both the lakefront and riverfront--generally speaking took the elevator to the underground garage and drove in and out. My immediate neighbor complained to me that I didn't squeegee my glass balcony railings often enough, another resident worried that my muddy truck was making the underground parking "dirty", while other's merely spoke loudly in the common areas about the quality of the owners going "downhill"--complete obsession with property values. The people make or break the community.

I now live in 1970s era sprawl. I made a point when I moved in of getting to know everyone in our immediate area--even though I strongly prefer an element of privacy (one of my reasons for living here)--my wife and I don't have kids--but I've gotten to know the kids on my street from young ones to teens--I'm the guy that lets the kids play hockey in his driveway and lends out his sticks--it didn't take a blackout or a calamity of some sort to get us out onto our porches--we all made the effort--from block BBQs to having Block Parents to taking concerns to Town Council as a group. So, while some feel very strongly about the "unsustainable" nature of lighter density neighborhoods--I stir at the mention of 'social unsustainability' which is a notion I don't accept. I can walk to the store, or for a coffee, and often do.

So my point is--it is risky to make assumptions based on bias, or to accept your own opinions as fact, merely because you believe in them so strongly.

[adam]

You state that blanket assumptions have no place here and yet you paint everyone who lived in your old building with the same brush.. is it a 1-way street? (no pun intended)

[highwater]

It's great that you live on a chummy street, fastcars, but I was referring to social unsustainability in more of a macro sense, such as the family time and volunteer hours lost to lengthy commutes, the loss of cultural and economic cross-pollination when residential areas are separated from employment and retail areas, the public health ramifications of car dependency, the loss of freedom and independence for children and seniors and anyone else who can't drive, etc. And yes, I suppose the isolation of suburbia is subjective, but I've just read too damn many articles about the suffering of new Canadians, particularly those who are used to living with extended family, to dismiss it entirely.

[highwater]

And I'm sorry. The landscapes in Jon's pics are just f*cking soul-destroying. I don't see how a fan of good architecture like yourself could argue otherwise.

[fastcarsfreedom]

A good argument indeed adam, and one which I left myself open to. In fact, I'm sure there were wonderful people who lived in my complex--I just never met them. I went to one acrimonious owners' meeting, and that was the extent of it--I remember we had a polling station in the building at election time--and the Elections Canada folks were also residents of the building--and no one really knew each other--save for the same few people encountered in day-to-day life.

I realized you were speaking in a macro sense, highwater--I respect that. Nonetheless, most of us don't live in a macro world. Again, we make choices in life that govern how we interact in our communities. I could, potentially, live in the city, take a short walk to/from work (or the bus) and come home and sit on my ass all evening. That would be family and volunteer time lost to the internet, or TSN. Instead--living where I do--I take time to stay active, I use the resources in the community, I still play hockey and softball at my advancing age--it's a choice I make. The health ramifications of "car dependency" are an excuse for an inactivity--not the cause of it.

Interesting arguments about the "suffering" of new Canadians. I am tempted to go off in a completely different direction--but I will resist that urge. While I think living with extended family is a wonderful notion--I think it is fair to say that is not something widely embraced in North American culture. In that sense, I can appreciate that it would be a 'transition' for someone coming from an area of the world where living with extended family is the norm. Nonetheless, most immigrants have some choice where they locate upon arriving in Canada, I think it's fair to say most are fleeing from true "suffering", as opposed to being subjected to it upon their arrival.

As for the photos--I don't base my viewpoints on a few selectively chosen photographs. It's akin to me taking photos of a vacant storefront on Barton Street, the Columbian Chemicals factory at Strathearne and Burlington Street and a prostitute on Wilson Street and saying that the city is depressing and soul-destroying. As for architecture--it's an interesting point. In reality, there is very little good architecture happening anywhere--most design, urban and suburban, is boring and repetititive--and what passes as being avant garde/trendy is mostly gharish (Libeskind).

Essentially--what I read from this debate is that it's impossible to be pro-city unless you're anti-suburb. I don't get that.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

As for the photos--I don't base my viewpoints on a few selectively chosen photographs. It's akin to me taking photos of a vacant storefront on Barton Street, the Columbian Chemicals factory at Strathearne and Burlington Street and a prostitute on Wilson Street and saying that the city is depressing and soul-destroying.

I shot the most interesting scenes I could find, not necessarily the most depressing. These were taken months ago before this thread came up with no intention of anti-suburbia grandstanding but rather looking for patterns and aesthetics in suburban design that make for interesting subject matter. I think they portray the area quite well, minus the supercenters and industrial parks.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

As for the trees--I can't speculate. I live in a 70s subdivision--early scorched earth if you will--built off of farmland--I've seen the photos it was bulldozed flat and started from scratch--earth movers and all. Now, let me tell you, our neighborhood is full of mature trees--all of which have grown naturally and not been killed off by driveway salt and lawn spray--(which of course, no one in the city would dare use).

I also grew up in a 70's development called Heritage Green in Upper Stoney Creek. For the most part, the majority of the original trees were kept (thank GOD), but the rest have yet to reach maturity YET they have gotten quite nice over the last 10 years-or-so.

But check this out:

Why Trees Die in New Subdivisions

There are reasons for these trees dying. One of the most common reasons is the change in the soil grade around the tree. Three or more inches of soil added over tree root systems often cuts off oxygen to the roots which eventually kills the roots and this eventually kills the tree.

If the subdivision was developed in an area where the trees were growing in thick groves and many of the trees had to be removed to make room for the houses, the trees which are left are exposed to more light and wind than they can handle and may die in two or three years.

Unfortunately for us (and our health) development companies don't care about this HUGE problem (it IS a huge problem) and will expect the City to pick up the cost 10-15 years down the road when most (if not all) of the trees have died. It's actually pretty disgusting if you ask me.

EDIT: ps, I'm not trying to pick on you Fastcars. You just have to admit that their 'green' claims are rediculous considering how big a carbon footprint living in this condo would leave. Granted MY condo isn't LEED certified, but I least I try my hardest in other ways: little-to-no A/C, Walk/take Public Transit, buy local from my downtown Farmer's Market, etc etc... much of which no one in North Burlington would do.
At least the building itself is nice

[fastcarsfreedom]

Greenshifting--I hate even using that term, makes me want to gag--so I'm with you 100% on the ridiculous claims of this developer--everyone is on the bandwagon in much the same way everyone was on the no cholesterol (sp?) bandwagon a few years back.

Trees are a big issue--I agree, and frankly, most developers could do a far better job of working within the framework of the land they acquire to build on. Summit Park, Meadowlands, etc, aren't the best examples--because they were cleared land to begin with--but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make the effort to seek out types of trees that are hardy and ensure that they are planted for maximum survivability. I've always thought the area of Tyandaga Woodlands/Forestvale area in Burlington was well done--with the new home construction done amidst old growth--it makes for a helluva beautiful neighborhood.

You are brave if you can go with little to no a/c--but I give you credit. I generally use mine all summer--home and auto--just can't seem to keep my hand off the switch. On the flipside I use less than average (I speculate) for heat in the winter--of which I use as little as possible. Public transit isn't an option for us--but I certainly make as many trips as possible via my legs as opposed to driving.

[Jon Dalton]

Oops I forgot one:


Couldn't even walk to get a coffee if you lived on this street - because there's a giant fence in the way!

In all fairness though, Ironstone is walking distance from Millcroft Shopping Centre (at least to its entrance) with restaurants, grocery, Zellers, crappy tire and a whack of other stuff.

I agree on the greenshifting trend, that's what pushed me over the edge to post this stuff. I so highly doubt that it factors into anyone's decision to move anywhere. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but will admit that my lifestyle choices are more based on my own sanity than trying to save the world. I know old houses use more energy to heat, and diesel GO trians belch disgusting amounts of smoke. Wood burning is more harmful to the atmosphere than driving cars with catalytic converters and thosands of dollars worth of emissions equipment. As far as I'm concerned, environmental damage is directly correlated to population, and none of us are going to go childless for the sole purpose of decreasing the world's population. We can all do our bit to be responsible knowing our affects on the environment, but every single one of us has our vices that we will continue to justify.