What makes a city attractive ?

Colin May · #1 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 1:33 AM**

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ity-attractive

Worth reading
WARNING : Nothing over 5 storeys

counterfactual · #2 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ity-attractive

Worth reading
WARNING : Nothing over 5 storeys

The European norm of achieving density but not necessarily building tall, is only possible if you are very efficient with existing land use. Paris, Amsterdam, other cities achieve this, because of historically very efficient land use and density in downtown cores. We don't have that.

The peninsula has very good density in certain areas (like around SGR), but bad in other areas -- large parts of the south and north end are filled with single unit buildings under 5 storeys. The peninsula has bled population since the 1950s, mostly because many of these houses contained large families but over time, the children moved away, and parents or lone parents stayed. And because there has been very little development on the peninsula in decades that would increase supply and thus reduce the cost of rent and buying on the peninsula, those houses haven't been replenished with new families, as they seek lower costs in the suburbs.

So, to make up for a lack of density in such important areas in the core, we need to make up for it with greater density in others. One way of achieving that, is building up.

New York City is an amazing city not just because it has "order", but because it has ultra-density with massively tall buildings, ensuring there are plenty of people to fill the streets, creating vibrant streets and lively, growing, neighborhoods.

worldlyhaligonian · #3 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:07 AM**

Nothing above 5 stories = no eiffel tower, no la defense

Even Amsterdam has an office area with height around the Zuid area.

Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

Nouvellecosse · #4 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:47 AM**

If you watch the video, the concepts are a lot more nuanced than that and it does discuss situations in which larger buildings are appropriate. I'm not sure I totally agree with all of its stances, but it isn't terribly crazy either.

Drybrain · #5 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Nothing above 5 stories = no eiffel tower, no la defense

Even Amsterdam has an office area with height around the Zuid area.

Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

eastcoastal · #6 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

...
Also, what about squares such as in Prague that have huge cathedrals.

God gets what he wants, height limits be damned

eastcoastal · #7 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 7:37 PM**

What makes a city attractive? Recent/local experience might suggest Killer Stairs™

Nouvellecosse · #8 Posted **Feb 11, 2015, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

Yes that's always been an issue in most of NA - at least in our contemporary times. In most of Europe's history, tearing down buildings and even whole neighbourhoods when the need warranted it and replacing with something denser was easily accomplished since a) it was needed before the age of highrises and automobiles, and b) there was authoritarian, top-down rule. Nowdays, as a city grows, the oldest parts of a city cannot simply replace all it's buildings with something larger. It can only replace buildings here and there after the odd building gets in poor shape and is allowed to be torn down or is lost to fire. So parts of many cities that are the most central and most sought-after are also surprisingly low-slung.

Of course in some cases it's possible to add floors to buildings to increase density or to preserve the facade and integrate it as part of a larger building. But these things all have limitations.

worldlyhaligonian · #9 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair, la Defense is easily the most boring (and least attractive) part of central Paris.

Anyway, "nothing over five storeys" works well only when five storeys is both the maximum and the mean. If the whole city is built out largely to four and five-storey buildings in close proximity, than you've got great density. The only way to do that in Canada--even in Montreal, out closest analogue in terms of built form--would be to tear down 95% of our built environment, even the older and denser areas, and start again. This is obviously not going to happen, so if we're to achieve sufficient density, we need some towers. Of course I wouldn't want to see our cities become Hong Kong-like either. That city may be a paragon of urbanity, but I find overbuilt cities exciting for a few days, then totally enervating. There is such a thing as too much density.

The city the article describes sounds great, but it's definitely written from a European point of view with a particular age of innate preferences.

Give me a break... the whole "build somewhere else" idea for Halifax... i.e. the Cogswell interchange is a deferral of not allowing any height in Halifax... the excuses are deferred.

La Defense is where office density exists. Don't be ignorant.

worldlyhaligonian · #10 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

God gets what he wants, height limits be damned

Height for Jesus.

Let's tear down all the churches taller than 5 stories in Halifax... they are toooo tall, think of the children!!!

Drybrain · #11 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Give me a break... the whole "build somewhere else" idea for Halifax... i.e. the Cogswell interchange is a deferral of not allowing any height in Halifax... the excuses are deferred.

La Defense is where office density exists. Don't be ignorant.

Please don't be so aggressive. Or if you're going to be aggressive, at least be comprehensible as well--I don't know what part of my post you're taking issue with or why.

someone123 · #12 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 5:38 AM**

The building heights are just one of many points, and many cities out there manage to be successful with taller buildings. They start by giving New York and Paris as examples of cities people love.

I think the parts about vibrancy/activity and unique local flavour are a lot more important than building heights. I really like newer buildings that respond to the rest of the city in some way in an intelligent way and relate well to the neighbourhood they're in or take good design cues from popular building styles without senselessly mimicking other buildings. I'd say that the Vic and the new library are two good examples of this. The low points of new development are the generic suburban-style buildings. They are not as common on the peninsula as they used to be but they still happen.

The North Common is a good example of where more vibrancy is/was needed, and where there's already been some success. The oval is something that it turns out lots of people like to use and so it has helped to populate that space and make it more useful to residents of the city. I think it would be great if the city continued along this path, re-evaluating public spaces and adding more amenities to them rather than leaving them as bleak monuments to an abstract concept of "open space".

worldlyhaligonian · #13 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 6:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Please don't be so aggressive. Or if you're going to be aggressive, at least be comprehensible as well--I don't know what part of my post you're taking issue with or why.

Dismissing my point about La Defense... I've spent a significant amount of time in Europe/Paris. It isn't intended to be most most exciting part of the city, but it serves its purpose and gives the city balance.

My point is that the height phobic people in Halifax continually say "build height in the Cogswell area" and not in the other parts of downtown. Myself, and others on this forum, believe this to be a smokescreen and when the time comes for development of the interchange lands... the same excuses will emerge.

The entirely 5 story model doesn't work for a modern city and even european cities have skyline clusters. In terms of attractiveness, people tout the skyline even though they may be against tall buildings!

Drybrain · #14 Posted **Feb 12, 2015, 12:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

My point is that the height phobic people in Halifax continually say "build height in the Cogswell area" and not in the other parts of downtown. Myself, and others on this forum, believe this to be a smokescreen and when the time comes for development of the interchange lands... the same excuses will emerge.

Okay, but that's not what I was getting at. Did you miss the part of my post where I said that towers are good and necessary and should be used where appropriate to achieve greater density? (No, I don't think every empty lot or low-rise building is crying out for a tower. I didn't say anything about Cogswell though--I think you've taken anti-tower criticisms you've heard elsewhere and are just attributing them to people with whom you disagree generally.)

halifaxboyns · #15 Posted **Feb 13, 2015, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

My point is that the height phobic people in Halifax continually say "build height in the Cogswell area" and not in the other parts of downtown. Myself, and others on this forum, believe this to be a smokescreen and when the time comes for development of the interchange lands... the same excuses will emerge.

The entirely 5 story model doesn't work for a modern city and even european cities have skyline clusters. In terms of attractiveness, people tout the skyline even though they may be against tall buildings!

I think you can have human scale buildings beyond 5 and 6 stories. Mid-rise, done well, pushes the tower portion back. So long as the street wall (the portion of the building at the edge of the property line shared with the sidewalk) is no more than 2-3 stories, when you push the tower back you create a break. This tricks the eye and creates a perceived massing break and so the feel is more comfortable because the tower portion is further back. I was reading a book (I'll have to find it at home) that talked about the perceptions of city building and it all goes back to a human instinct of being enclosed (trapped in small spaces).

When you have a 40 storey building that goes straight up, visually there is no breaks in the massing so it feels quite imposing to the person on the street (depending on the design). So we feel entrapped in a way, so the space isn't comfortable. When you break the building at a 2 storey streetwall and push the tower element back - you don't feel as confined. When combined with wider sidewalks, this adds to the lessoned feeling of being 'confined' on the sidewalk. Further add in active uses on the ground floors that permeate onto the street (sidewalk cafes, restaurants) and the feeling lessons even more.

Personally, I have no issue with using tall buildings in clusters to mark key points like transit stations. Do they have to be 30+ stories? No, not really...I don't subscribe to the density at all costs idea. But if I was to achieve my dream of turning Agricola into a streetcar street again, wherever the stations were on Agricola is where I'd like to see some of the taller buildings. For example: if there were stations at Agricola/Charles; Agricola/Almon and Agricola/Young then you could have a number of tall buildings in a block radius around this points - say 20+ stories (mixed use). Then the scale goes down to midrise between (or even 6-8 stories) and then rises back up at the next station.

The key with this idea will be ensuring sunlight gets to the street. So the design of the 'box' (the building envelope) will be key. Generally in the work we do along our corridors, we encourage applicants to demonstrate that their design gets sunlight onto the street 5-6 hours a day and preferably during the busy times of the day. Granted, location has a huge baring on that so we take a pretty open stance on that.

worldlyhaligonian · #16 Posted **Feb 13, 2015, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I think you can have human scale buildings beyond 5 and 6 stories. Mid-rise, done well, pushes the tower portion back. So long as the street wall (the portion of the building at the edge of the property line shared with the sidewalk) is no more than 2-3 stories, when you push the tower back you create a break. This tricks the eye and creates a perceived massing break and so the feel is more comfortable because the tower portion is further back. I was reading a book (I'll have to find it at home) that talked about the perceptions of city building and it all goes back to a human instinct of being enclosed (trapped in small spaces).

When you have a 40 storey building that goes straight up, visually there is no breaks in the massing so it feels quite imposing to the person on the street (depending on the design). So we feel entrapped in a way, so the space isn't comfortable. When you break the building at a 2 storey streetwall and push the tower element back - you don't feel as confined. When combined with wider sidewalks, this adds to the lessoned feeling of being 'confined' on the sidewalk. Further add in active uses on the ground floors that permeate onto the street (sidewalk cafes, restaurants) and the feeling lessons even more.

Personally, I have no issue with using tall buildings in clusters to mark key points like transit stations. Do they have to be 30+ stories? No, not really...I don't subscribe to the density at all costs idea. But if I was to achieve my dream of turning Agricola into a streetcar street again, wherever the stations were on Agricola is where I'd like to see some of the taller buildings. For example: if there were stations at Agricola/Charles; Agricola/Almon and Agricola/Young then you could have a number of tall buildings in a block radius around this points - say 20+ stories (mixed use). Then the scale goes down to midrise between (or even 6-8 stories) and then rises back up at the next station.

The key with this idea will be ensuring sunlight gets to the street. So the design of the 'box' (the building envelope) will be key. Generally in the work we do along our corridors, we encourage applicants to demonstrate that their design gets sunlight onto the street 5-6 hours a day and preferably during the busy times of the day. Granted, location has a huge baring on that so we take a pretty open stance on that.

I agree with all of the above. But, for example, what's wrong with the Robie Quinpool developments? When certain counsellors say "human scale" they really mean no height.

halifaxboyns · #17 Posted **Feb 13, 2015, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I agree with all of the above. But, for example, what's wrong with the Robie Quinpool developments? When certain counsellors say "human scale" they really mean no height.

Well yes. That's likely what they mean. I have no issue with the proposal from what I've seen so far - but I do want to see the towers a bit more narrow to limit shadow impacts. We will see how it goes...

This is why projects like this go to Regional Council for consideration.