1095 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Here's the census tract density data for Calgary. Notice that there's only one tract that's significantly more dense than Victoria's dense tracts. Also notice that some of the suburban areas in the upper right corner are surprisingly dense, all things considered:

[Baro]

if I had to guess based on that map I'd say downtown is in the upper right corner? Good lord that's sprawl...

any chance of getting a map like this for a city like Prague, which in my opinion has some of the best "density management" I've ever seen.

[aastra]

the amount of infilling in the core of the South Shore, most of it condominiums and apartments, shows people are “coming back to the ideal of living in an urban centre.”

Moffett said downtown living will naturally be expensive “for the sheer location.”

By the year 2021, the population of Kamloops is expected to reach 100,000 — and one-fifth of those people will want to live downtown...

http://www.globalair...east/2003/026/2

Methinks they're being extremely optimistic with their goals. One-fifth of the next 20,000 residents will want to live downtown? That's the equivalent of what, 20 large residential highrises? No chance. Kamloops has a fairly large and legitimate downtown for its size but even so, I have to think their downtown would be booming if it were to get even half as many new residents as they're hoping for. Anyway, it's always interesting to me to see just how optimistic other cities are on the matter of downtown densification.

http://www.bclocalne...for_650000.html

Edit: it occurs to me he might have been referring to the CA population instead of the city population, which is only 8,000 away from 100,000 as of the last census. Still, downtown Kamloops would have to experience a heck of a residential boom to add nearly 2,000 new residents in 13 years. That's the equivalent of a new Harris Green. How long did Harris Green take? Almost 40 years?

[jklymak]

Interesting article. I think the relevant quote is:

There’s no land to build single-family houses, so condominiums are the way to go.

If there is no more land, density is the result.

[aastra]

Except in Fairfield, of course.

[Coreyburger]

Thank you. As to whether or not private governance would be a nightmare, well, there's no need to theorize. Private neighborhoods are a reality, and an increasingly popular one, despite the horror stories one hears about dysfunctional strata councils. The increasing growth in privately governed neighborhoods indicates that there are many consumers who feel that they benefit from living in those communities. Currently, those who can't afford to purchase in newer developments are excluded from those benefits. A legal mechanism needs to be developed so that those who live in established neighborhoods could take advantage of those perceived benefits, if they so desired.

If you want the ultimate end of private neighbourhoods, you need only go to South Africa. Every person capable of leaving the inner cities is, due to crime and fear of crime. All this creates is a massive car-oriented culture and significant problems down the road.

[gumgum]

Census: Fewer Victorians commuting by car
But 'centralized workforce' persists as many don't live where they work
Carla Wilson, Times Colonist; With files from Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008

[jdsony]

Census: Fewer Victorians commuting by car
But 'centralized workforce' persists as many don't live where they work
Carla Wilson, Times Colonist; With files from Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008

I think more people would live downtown if there were more places to live and lower priced places to live. I'd love to see even more bike trails. The galloping goose is awesome and with all the electric assist options available for bikes commuting from a huge distance is possible even for those less physically inclined (my 64 year old step dad does it from Langford to downtown and back).

As for gated communities I think they are a terrible idea. There's enough disconnect from society as it is. I was exploring the deserts of Nevada last month and the amount of gated communities in Las Vegas is staggering. Whether people want it or not it shouldn't be allowed. Sure it might benefit the occupants in their shortsighted views but the psychological issues this can cause in the long term is bad news. We are closed enough and anti-social enough as it is, being afraid of the outside world is just another step in the wrong direction. I have nothing against closing residential roads to auto traffic or community planning for the greater good but please don't make people live in fear.

[gumgum]

^Agreed!

[davek]

Whether people want it or not it shouldn't be allowed.

Do you mean it shouldn't be allowed to poor people, or do you mean all residents of gated communities should be forced to tear their gates down and be stripped of their private status?

We are closed enough and anti-social enough as it is, being afraid of the outside world is just another step in the wrong direction. I have nothing against closing residential roads to auto traffic or community planning for the greater good but please don't make people live in fear.

Using force to deprive people of the way they want to live will not make them (or society) more open or social, nor will it make them less fearful. Freedom to live as they see fit, so long as they don't violate the rights of others, will.

[gumgum]

private status?

What the heck does that mean anyway? Sure I like privacy when I go to the bathroom or when I'm watching TV in my underwear, but I would never constitute privacy and as a symbol of my lifestyle. I would want to anyway.

Using force to deprive people of the way they want to live will not make them (or society) more open or social, nor will it make them less fearful.

Our government is not stopping you from isolating yourself from the rest of society. People are welcome to move to the sticks and only see people when they go to the grocery store. In fact, now you can just order stuff online and be a complete hermit.

Isolating different sects of society does instill fear and hatred of the other. Also it limits people. The recent influx of people into the core of cities, abandoning their suburban domain shows you just how people realize the great benefits of living in a integrated, dense society. It's safe, exciting, environmentally and socially responsible.

[davek]

What the heck does that mean anyway?

It means I'm asking jdsony that when he says gated communities should not be allowed whether people want them or not, is it just the gate/wall that he is concerned with, or is he opposed to the whole idea of private community, including ownership of its parks, roads, pools, etcetera?

Our government is not stopping you from isolating yourself from the rest of society... It's safe, exciting, environmentally and socially responsible.

I don't even know what you were going on about there, but I'm saying that if people want to live in private communities and if they pay their own way, they should not be forced to live otherwise simply because some folks think that makes society less open, connected, or social.

[gumgum]

^I'd be happy to elaborate on what you don't understand. Just be specific about what it is I've said that confuses you.
All I can do is reassure you: nobody's forcing you to live anywhere. You can live in the arctic if you'd like.

...the whole idea of private community, including ownership of its parks, roads, pools, etcetera?

I don't get the concept of a private park or a road. Isn't a private road a driveway? And isn't a private park just a yard with a swing set in the corner? Maybe I'm just being naive in your world but words like "park" and "private" seem like an oxymoron. And how could anyone enjoy one of these "parks" knowing that it's actually only restricted to a select few? The more precious the park, the more I would feel as I would be squandering its surroundings selfishly. I'd be concerned that those people on the outside might think that their existence is somehow less valuable than my own, because they can't share in the tranquility of the setting.

[davek]

^I'd be happy to elaborate on what you don't understand. Just be specific about what it is I've said that confuses you.
All I can do is reassure you: nobody's forcing you to live anywhere. You can live in the arctic if you'd like.

I not confused about what you wrote, I'm confused as to why you wrote it. jdsony said gated communities shouldn't be allowed. I asked if he was opposed to just the walls and gates, or was he opposed to private communities. I also added "Using force to deprive people of the way they want to live will not make them (or society) more open or social, nor will it make them less fearful.", since that may be what he is advocating. Your comments about government not forcing anyone to live anywhere were largely true, but neither jdsony nor I were arguing that they weren't. So I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding.

I don't get the concept of a private park or a road. Isn't a private road a driveway? And isn't a private park just a yard with a swing set in the corner? Maybe I'm just being naive in your world but words like "park" and "private" seem like an oxymoron.

Nothing you have written strikes me as naive in my world or any other. So far, I gather that you don't like the idea of private neighbourhoods, but I haven't seen you suggest they shouldn't be allowed. As to the rest of your quote, you are probably aware that in private communities, such as many townhouse developments, the roads, parks, swimming pools, and other amenities are commonly owned by the property owners, rather than by the municipality. It is an increasingly common arrangement. If you feel that any privately owned piece of asphalt upon which cars travel is a driveway, and not a road, I wouldn't want to defend your position, but I don't mind if you hold it. Same thing with parks. If you think 'private park' is an oxymoron, that's no problem for me.

And how could anyone enjoy one of these "parks" knowing that it's actually only restricted to a select few? The more precious the park, the more I would feel as I would be squandering its surroundings selfishly. I'd be concerned that those people on the outside might think that their existence is somehow less valuable than my own, because they can't share in the tranquility of the setting.

Those are generous sentiments, but do they justify the prohibition of private communities? I wouldn't say so, and I'm not sure you would, either.

[gumgum]

I not confused about what you wrote, I'm confused as to why you wrote it. jdsony said gated communities shouldn't be allowed. I asked if he was opposed to just the walls and gates, or was he opposed to private communities. I also added "Using force to deprive people of the way they want to live will not make them (or society) more open or social, nor will it make them less fearful.", since that may be what he is advocating. Your comments about government not forcing anyone to live anywhere were largely true, but neither jdsony nor I were arguing that they weren't. So I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding.

I was assuming you were making dual statements about what jdsony about them not being allowed, as well as saying the government isn't allowing them much in Canada, but they should be allowed more through the planning process. I did misunderstand.

Anyway.

I just don't see how anyone would want to live in a private community. Now do I see how it's good for a community as a whole.
You've spoken on the subject in other posts.
I genuinely want to know what you see as the benefits to the individual, an individual's family, and the benefits to a community as a whole?

[Baro]

We should make wanting to live in a gated community illegal, round the people up and force them to live in a special development, and then build a wall around it. We could have security guards at the entrances to make sure only the punished people that live there can come and go.

[davek]

^ That's a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

(Tips hat to Rowan Atkinson)

[davek]

...as well as saying the government isn't allowing them much in Canada, but they should be allowed more through the planning process.

I think many people will be surprised to know that not only are they allowed in Canada, they are encouraged. Municipalities love private neighbourhoods, because (as I understand it) local governments don't give residents of private neighbourhoods a tax break. Local government still gets all the revenue, but with fewer responsibilities.

I just don't see how anyone would want to live in a private community.

You're not the only one who feels that way. But consider this; when I began working in Colwood five years ago, there were six private communities, all townhomes. Since then, two more have been constructed, five more are underway, and one more has made building permit applications. Two of these eight new developments are composed of single family homes, and the remainder are townhomes. One of our planners has recently joined from View Royal, where he tells me the picture is very similar. They are an increasingly popular form of development.

I genuinely want to know what you see as the benefits to the individual, an individual's family, and the benefits to a community as a whole?

Okay, but let me be clear. I'm not trying to convince anyone that private neighbourhoods are a good thing. I'll leave that to the realtors and developers. What I want to point out is that there are clearly a lot of people who feel that living in a private community has more benefits than their other options. These perceived benefits are unavailable to existing neighbourhoods, which means lower- and working-class communities are unable to take advantage of them. It would be more just if there were a mechanism by which existing neighbourhoods could convert to private status, provided they could show that a supermajority of the residents desire to do so. That's really what I'm selling.

So, now for some benefits! As you probably know, security is sometimes a concern for people who buy into private communities, although perhaps not as much as many suspect. Of the fourteen developments I cited above, only four are gated, and none are walled. The road layouts are such that they would only be traveled by residents, guests, and delivery people. The combination of road layout and controlled gates make a neighbourhood roughly as secure as an apartment building with controlled entrances. If privatized, a working-class neighbourhood with a high crime rate might elect to block some of the entrances to their community, essentially creating an elaborate cul-de-sac. If that simple, inexpensive action results in less crime, the individuals, families, and community as a whole will enjoy greater peace of mind, fewer property losses, and stronger property values.

For more benefits, Robert Nelson of the University of Maryland is the go-to guy. You can find a brief article by him here, something a little more substantial here, and if you want even more, I can get you a copy of a 33 page paper he presented back in June 2007.

[Caramia]

Thanks for clarifying your stance Davek. Considering that one of the major benefits to a private community is that it becomes possible to lay out the roads as a sort of uber-cul-de-sac or to block off entrances to the neighbourhood so that it is no longer part of the urban grid that others use to get from place to place, how do you deal with making sure the citizens of that neighbourhood pay extra into society for the extra infrastructure use and car use that such a design generates? (If you would like further information on those externalities check out true cost accounting as a starting point, and Andres Duany's Suburban Nation as a good read) The second question is, assuming then that most neighbourhoods declare themselves private, and block off their streets to create a false cul-de-sac. How then does traffic flow from one end of the city to the next? How do neighbourhoods who do not close themselves off get compensated for taking the extra load of thru-traffic?

[G-Man]

So what is the difference between what you are discussing and a bare lot strata? Seems the same.

Personally if I bought a house the last thing I would want is a stupid strata telling I couldn't paint my house pink or put yellow curtains up.

Perhaps in some ways I am more of a libertarian than you are.

The forced conformity of strata's make me want to puke. I had an ex that had a condo in Saanich and if you backed into your car spot you got a note that you had to park like everyone else.

Also I have friends that bought into a strata townhouse development similar to what you are describing in Colwood and they are not allowed to plant a garden and plant types are mandated by the council. Seems like a perfect hell IMO. There is getting along and then there is forced conformity.