Comment 87977

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted April 19, 2013 at 03:59:10 in reply to Comment 87969

First off, one building is very different then expressway prevention and block clearing that Jacobs was so adamant in stopping, however I'm assuming you are looking for her planning legacy vs her activist legacy. To that I say Jacobs also espoused the ideas of dense urban development and mixed development.

Greenwich Village, while old, seldom falls into generic, cookie cutter development. Differing floor sizes, archways, window styles, brick colours and stone patterns and appreciate amounts of neighbouring, continuous greenspace in the hudson river park, supplemented by large parks in Washington Square, and James J. Walker. Also notable 10-5 story developments that supplement the smaller ones. Also should probably add home to an eight lane roadway nearby in the Lincoln Highway/West St and a swath of one way streets (although given this is New York, and they possess and overwhelming amount of car traffic in very small roadways compared to Hamilton, may actually be needed). It boasts separated, bike paths, and large car specific roadways and slow speed streets.

Also, take a look at the St. Lawrence where she gained her notoriety protecting. Front & George St. The North East corner of Yonge and Front, Jarvis and the Espalande and several others. New, high density development complimenting old development, of which very little of it repeats. Also continuous greenspace along the esplande, supplemented by large parks in St James, Moss and Sackville. Also, right next to the Gardiner a high density roadway, with bike lanes on the esplanade and slow speed streets in the area. Do we see a pattern here?

In both cases, the areas boast ample 5 to 10 story development which supplement the buildings which makes for appreciable density that so much of Hamilton lacks, another core item Jacobs espoused. It's the missing link. The lack of mixed use is predominant, instead falling into a generic three floor housing paradigm or generic suburban housing, of which only a scant few choice demolitions of generic, insufficiently dense development could provide. They also boast a major roadway nearby.

Now of course many point to surface parking lots as a place where you could erect such buildings, and while I agree with you in the core, where do you intend on doing so in say...Stipley, Crown Point and Homeside. If code red is any indicator, they are some of the worst neighbourhoods in our city. All have an incredibly low number of single residential or commercial buildings above three floors and so much of it swaths of cookie cutter 60s housing

Then look at Durand, which I would say is the ideal of mixed development in our city. There are ample newer high rise residential and commercial developments (Commercial predominantly alone Main) alongside older, lower to medium density buildings, and right next to a major high density roadway in Main St. with fairly sedate streets (which would be better if they were two ways I'd admit) and a bike route along Markland.

I'm not saying bulldoze the city, like Copps did, I'm saying one or two bad buildings is ok, especially if it can lead to one or two high density developments. We also need to focus on the real treasures which aren't sufficiently protected in Hamilton if the narrow miss of the Lister Block, the Sanford School, and the Board of Ed building (which I will admit I was for getting rid of, but understand there are many who did regard it as priceless) is any indicator.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-04-19 04:32:07

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds