- cross-posted to:
- vancouver@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- vancouver@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
She’s right.
Density isn’t the enemy. Bad arrangement of dense population is.
I live in a very densely-populated city (1200/km² or 3200/sq.mi.) but it’s arranged semi-sanely. Within comfortable walking distance of my home are two parks, a Daoist temple, several schools at levels ranging from primary to 2nd-tier university, two (large!) farmer’s markets, three shopping centres (two of which have sizable supermarkets), uncountable numbers of restaurants ranging from holes in the wall to fancy banquet halls… You get the idea. Within 3 stops of the nearest subway station or 5 stops of the nearest bus stop all that expands dramatically. I’m not sure I could even realistically count them all except to say that it doubles the number of Daoist temples and adds a sizable Buddhist one. (The nearest church is about 5 subway stops away, maybe 6.) Outside of work (which is an hour’s commute by subway and bus away) I could live my entire life without being more than 20 minutes away from my home … and never be bored or finding myself in a rut.
I can’t say the same for Ottawa when I lived there. Hell, within fifteen minutes of DRIVING I couldn’t find much in most of the places I lived.
1200/km² or 3200/sq.mi.
At first you had me thinking, there is no way 1,200/km² is very densely-populated. That’s like small town where everyone has a big lawn in the front and a pool in the back kind of numbers. But then I read 3,200/sq mi and realized you flipped the units.
That said, even 1,200/km² is perfectly dense enough to allow walkability to everything if done right. But the appeal of being a farmer is too great for the average person. They want to have to get into a vehicle every time they go to do something.
Flipped the units? I’ve never seen density measures as km²/person! Where are you seeing density measured as area per person?
But the appeal of being a farmer is too great for the average person. They want to have to get into a vehicle every time they go to do something.
We’re getting to the point where that’s neither here nor there because however much they want that, people can’t afford it.
That is true, but they are not going to down without a fight. Which is why we are seeing more and more “But please sir, if I can’t have car, at least how about a new train? I can’t be seen walking like pleb.”
What we really need in Canada is for companies and jobs to spread out across multiple cities in Canada instead of being all concentrated in Toronto.
Then maybe everyone and their grandmother and all immigrants won’t be trying to cram themselves into one small place in a country that has one of the largest areas on earth.
The point of this article is we can and should make room in Toronto. There’s plenty of space if we accommodate with a better built form that isn’t sprawling detached homes.
Building density is not as simple as just putting up more apartment buildings. it requires planning for how to expand schools, make sure that utilities are not over burdened, traffic congestion and ways to mitigate it etc. Expanding suburbs have all the same problems and more. It absolutely can be done, but doing it right requires proper preparation otherwise you create new and different problems.
It’s cold in Canada, that’s why everybody stick together to keep warm
🤦 Alright here ya go ⬆️
Now get outta here.
That’s on the government to build out cities in remote locations and then have extremely low costs for people/businesses to bring them in
Also needs high speed commercial rail between the cities
We HAVE other cities across Canada already that could be used as other locations for companies. We don’t need to build more.
What the government needs to do is provide incentives for companies to move. But that could mean job losses in Toronto/Ontario. Would they be willing to make that sacrifice? I don’t think so.
I agree with the high speed rail thing though.
Ontario needs intermediaries between Toronto/Ottawa and Thunder Bay
The niche is currently occupied by Sudbury and Sault which isn’t ideal
There also isn’t really anything connecting to Hudson Bay/NW Passage (goes for the other provinces)
Toronto easily has space to grow to 4 million residents plus. There are vast swaths of Canada’s largest city that are built like some far-flung suburb, and that needs to change sooner rather than later
Will you forget about Toronto already???
Toronto isn’t the only place in Canada where people live.
Fuck. It’s no wonder everyone else in Canada hates Torontonians. It’s like you guys think you’re the only ones in the whole goddamn country.
In context, the focus on Toronto as an example makes sense.
Give the guy a pass this time.
Calgary is on it.
I always thought that habitat67 was a good example of how to do add density in a way that didn’t feel dense. It’s too bad this never got further than Expo 67.
Feels like a bit of a disingenuous article when it won’t openly talk about the downsides of density. The downtown core of Toronto got denser and it got completely soulless. It’s tower after tower that block daylight from reaching street level, leaving no sunlight but for those living at the top, and endless stretches of shoebox apartments where you’re lucky if you get a balcony. There’s no independent shops left and all the real estate is owned by massive corporations and banks that are always trying to extract as much money as possible from their tenants.
Their solution of bowling over all single family housing to replace with midrise apartments is also not exactly going to be popular.
I get that we need to density and we need land reform but your proposal is going to have a real hard time gaining traction if it boils down to “let’s tear down everything here that all the existing residents chose and replace it with something else that we think is more logical”.
“let’s tear down everything here that all the existing residents chose and replace it with something else that we think is more logical”.
This feels like a dishonest interpretation that misses a lot of the nuance presented in the article.
I also don’t understand how that person came to their conclusion based off of:
"We should allow mixed-use buildings of at least six storeys in all our neighbourhoods—and ensure that they are not only easier to approve, but also more viable to build. "
From this sentence preceding it where they’re describing their optimal density model:
Density in Paris is constant and spread out, with plenty of six- to 10-storey apartments; one thing you won’t find, though, are detached homes and smaller buildings.
Yeah but midrise apartments are by definition more popular?
Again, not to the people who already live in neighbourhoods comprised of single family homes. “Solving” the housing crisis by simply changing zoning laws in those neighbourhoods has the effect of making the property unaffordable for a single person to buy so then developers buy the homes and tear them down and turn them into midrises.
Yes, we do need do build more mid rises and their should be more mixed into those neighbourhoods, but if your solution to the housing crisis is just to cram a million tiny homes into the same space you’re just participating in a race to the bottom.
Most people don’t want to live their whole life in an apartment with no green space. We should be solving the housing crisis by building enough of the type of housing we actually want to live in, which might mean building more Vancouvers and Torontos instead of just tearing them down and replacing them with Manahattans or Parises.
Who gives a fuck about rich nimby dickheads who would rather see people homeless than see people housed?
The 6 poor families that could afford to have stable living conditions on the plot of land your single family home sit on outweigh your opinion 6 to 1. They’d rather have a home.
Stop projecting your idea of “good housing” onto the rest of us: the overwhelming majority of us live in cities and are interested in stability over 1 acre of useless yard.
Who gives a fuck about rich nimby dickheads who would rather see people homeless than see people housed?
Because the solution to the problem directly effects what is affordable. It doesn’t take a rich person to afford the building / material cost of a house, the cost of housing and what is and isn’t affordable is a product of the societal infrastructure we build.
The 6 poor families that could afford to have stable living conditions on the plot of land your single family home sit on outweigh your opinion 6 to 1. They’d rather have a home.
Why could my grandparents afford a great big plot of land on a poor single salary? Why could my parents afford a small row house on two even poorer salaries? Why can I struggle to barely afford a condo despite making more than all of them combined by this point in their career? Because we haven’t built any new cities, mass transit, or walkable infrastructure in like 30 years in this country.
Why are you racing to turn pleasant cities that people chose to move to, into crammed slums? Why not pressure the government to build more cities and build more transit infrastructure in existing smaller cities to make more Torontos and Vancouvers rather than tear down the existing cities and replace them with manhattans or barcelonas?
We need to densify, but the cold hard reality of the situation is that living in a shoebox with no greenspace is not pleasant or mentally healthy for people. There’s a reason that apartment buildings like Habitat 67 have like a 0% turnover rate, compared to soulless glass rectangles in the sky, because even people living in smaller apartments like their own yard and greenspace. You want to accommodate our population by letting everyone in the suburbs chill in their mcmansions, and tearing down existing relatively dense housing in the middle of the cities, and further densify it, I’d rather us invest in more transit infrastructure in underserved suburbs and small towns and turn them into other mid sized walkable cities.
Again, not to the people who already live in neighbourhoods comprised of single family homes.
You got yours, so F everyone else? Classic ladder-yanker prattle.
Don’t have one, just would like to at some point, and that won’t happen if you buy the developer propaganda and rush for a future where the only housing available is shoe box apartments.
one thing you won’t find, though, are detached homes and smaller buildings.
Ah, so Paris grew up.
Seriously. In most cases residents did not choose large swaths of single family home suburbs, the planning commission did by zoning everything R1 and washing their hands of it.
Density shouldn’t be big tower. It should be 4-5 story building very close together.
The downtown core of Toronto got denser and it got completely soulless. It’s tower after tower that block daylight from reaching street level, leaving no sunlight but for those living at the top, and endless stretches of shoebox apartments where you’re lucky if you get a balcony.
Sorry kid. You can’t have space AND fit people as well. Since every rooftop needs to be a garden, at least that’s a nice place to hang out.
You can’t solve it by mid-ride or low-boys, either – you need the economies of scale and minimal-density to save on infrastructure; and get better transit that is sufficient on property taxes before the user-pay system and road-tax ideas both die. Because no one’s paying for the absolute shit Translink pulled these last few years. You need the high density to create and maintain the shared greenspace between the clusters, so it doesn’t end up looking like Detroit or Jersey. You need the high densite to get that land BACK, as well as pull people out of the delta where we NEED that land for responsible local farming. (didn’t think of that in your mid-rise plan, did you?)
Sorry. Towers are the reality if you want to live in the cities – just, if we do it right, with greenways of sanity to break up the tower clusters and cool things down… Kitimat’s nice, though.
