Comment 103912

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted August 13, 2014 at 09:12:44

I think that a large part of the reason for backlash over new developments is from the failure of the these developments to either not even happen (after a huge amount of planning and community input has gone into them), bate-and-switch (when what is actually built ends up being much worse or very different from what the public was consulted on) or when the community is promised the City will stand up for high quality urban design and then we end up with a Centre Mall or the Shoppers on Cannon at Wellington (with no windows or entrance onto the actual street https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Shopper...!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szXRYA49_wvYcNiwVtaZdXg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x2be7ab63f6c5eb0f!)

I participated in the half-day Charette the City organized to imagine good denser urban design at King/Dundurn back in June 2011 (i.e. I took a vacation day to donate my time to the city).

The City's urban design staff were very skilled and knowledgeable in guiding us through the process of imagining a much denser urban design that would fit well into the existing neighbourhood and take advantage of its location at a major transportation hub (freeways, GO, LRT). They kept emphasizing that surface parking should be minimized (and never front the street) and that continuous mid-rise buildings actually achieve higher density than 30 storey towers (due to the need for space around the towers and space taken for elevators and other services).

Instead of something that at least respects these principles, just three years later we are presented with a plan that goes against every one of them!

If the City and developers can get this simple development so wrong, how can residents trust them with bigger projects? It is at least gratifying that staff are recommending against approval.

In the downtown core, instead of a continuous street wall of mid-rise and some high-rise buildings, we may be in danger of getting more 30 storey Landmark places, while keeping whole blocks of surface parking. This is obviously not good densification, and it was not what the planners were recommending.

As a counter-example, look at Christchurch NZ. After it was devastated by an earthquake, the City actually consulted with the residents to design on guidelines for re-building. The overwhelming consensus was that no buildings higher than mid-rise should be built, and the result is the following:

Height restrictions are split between the different Central City Zones, and are shown on the Central City Planning Map 3:

a. Central City Business Zone (Core) 28m (7 storey)

b. Central City Business Zone (Gateway) 17m (4 storey)

c. Central City Mixed Use Zone 17m (4 storey)

http://www.wynnwilliams.co.nz/CBD-Rebuil...

Interestingly, some studies show that beyond 7 storeys residents tend to get disconnected from the street: they avoid going outside unless they have to because it feels like a big deal just to get out out of the building. And remember that Paris is almost entirely 7 storeys and manages a very high urban density.

At the very least, the residents of Christchurch will be able to say they will live in the sort of city they want (rather than what the developers feel like building on any particular lot)!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-08-13 09:28:21

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds