Albertasaurus
Senior Member
I hope to be proven wrong someday but until I see some actual construction there, I see that "midtown" scheme as nothing more than a huge land lift.
Broadway on 17th | 154m | 47s | Vesta | Zeidler
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CBBarnett
Senior Member
TOD conversations seem to get bogged down in a scarcity mindset - there's endless debates on which ones are the priorities, which ones are the best, we can't possibly have them all. I'd say let them all rip! Unleash the TODs!
While site-specific constraints, marketability and infrastructure issues exist all over, the policy and park-and-ride barriers are universal and are the real problem. Vancouver has some incredible examples, but many are only possible due to their dysfunctional planning and land economics that push things towards incredibly expensive, mega-sized billion dollar TODs. The lesson shouldn't be on the giantess of their projects, but the attention to detail, walkability and mixing of uses right at the stations themselves. You don't need billions dollars and 50 storey towers for that - University District does just fine with mostly 6 storey development.
As long as we get the basics right - walkable, retail, density near the stations, circulation that puts transit and pedestrians first over all else - any TOD is good. University District and West District both show how successiful and attractive a walkable place can be, and neither got obsessed with towers (or with transit apparently). Tower projects like this one are also fine - but again, it's not the tower, its the density, mix of uses and walkability-first design. We seem to be getting better at building these types of places almost anywhere but TOD, ironically!
Let's break that scarcity mindset - more people living near transit is a universally beneficial good thing, regardless of which station, as long as the fundamentals are there for walkability.
While site-specific constraints, marketability and infrastructure issues exist all over, the policy and park-and-ride barriers are universal and are the real problem. Vancouver has some incredible examples, but many are only possible due to their dysfunctional planning and land economics that push things towards incredibly expensive, mega-sized billion dollar TODs. The lesson shouldn't be on the giantess of their projects, but the attention to detail, walkability and mixing of uses right at the stations themselves. You don't need billions dollars and 50 storey towers for that - University District does just fine with mostly 6 storey development.
As long as we get the basics right - walkable, retail, density near the stations, circulation that puts transit and pedestrians first over all else - any TOD is good. University District and West District both show how successiful and attractive a walkable place can be, and neither got obsessed with towers (or with transit apparently). Tower projects like this one are also fine - but again, it's not the tower, its the density, mix of uses and walkability-first design. We seem to be getting better at building these types of places almost anywhere but TOD, ironically!
Let's break that scarcity mindset - more people living near transit is a universally beneficial good thing, regardless of which station, as long as the fundamentals are there for walkability.
maestro
Senior Member
yeah, everyone should have alternative options to a car in order to get around. In this climate, the ideals of Transit Oriented development has morphed into islands of high rises in suburbia to house the million newcomers coming to Canada every year. It's a vertical residential subdivision that forces people to use transit as everything is still far away. It's better than being tied to the car but, it's a far cry from walkable and local.
It reminds me of sprawl. Sprawl is lower density but, not all lower densities are sprawl. Increasingly higher population densities take less acreage but, a much higher percentage of that acreage ends up built or paved over. Lawns are unproductive but, it's potential space that could be productive which can't be said about a concrete plaza that requires man made drainage systems. Downtowns are cities heartbeat but the majority of the proposed TODs around the country are nothing more than taller and taller towers with higher and higher populations with some retail, little nearby employment or places to socialize. There's no point to it except to express that transit development and cover in the urban areas are woefully underdeveloped and excitement for these tall clustered apartment subdivision is settling on we can't do any better. Worst still, it's typically not a re-imaging of suburbia but, an intensification of existing suburban lots within the existing autocentric framework
New urbanism was far from perfect but, they had the scale for inner city neighbourhoods right.
It reminds me of sprawl. Sprawl is lower density but, not all lower densities are sprawl. Increasingly higher population densities take less acreage but, a much higher percentage of that acreage ends up built or paved over. Lawns are unproductive but, it's potential space that could be productive which can't be said about a concrete plaza that requires man made drainage systems. Downtowns are cities heartbeat but the majority of the proposed TODs around the country are nothing more than taller and taller towers with higher and higher populations with some retail, little nearby employment or places to socialize. There's no point to it except to express that transit development and cover in the urban areas are woefully underdeveloped and excitement for these tall clustered apartment subdivision is settling on we can't do any better. Worst still, it's typically not a re-imaging of suburbia but, an intensification of existing suburban lots within the existing autocentric framework
New urbanism was far from perfect but, they had the scale for inner city neighbourhoods right.