Urban densification bad for families, environment and families

[edmonton daily photo]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/09/a-dense-idea/
Lots of thoughts in this article. It could be split into a few different ideas. We will start with a quote from a rob ford supporter.

Last month Toronto’s deputy mayor, Doug Holyday, uttered what has become a cultural taboo in Canada’s largest city. Downtown Toronto, he said, is no place to raise a family.

“I could just see now: ‘Where’s little Ginny?’ ” he said. “She’s downstairs playing in the traffic on her way to the park.”

End

Now this one...

But a growing body of critics is arguing that far from raising our quality of living, greening our environment and making us all walk more and drive less, the kind of radical intensification plans now in vogue with urban planners are damaging our economies, raising our cost of living and failing to get people out of their cars and onto public transit. What we need, they say, is a much more thoughtful debate over how to live beyond the push to cram more people into ever-smaller spaces.

End

Another study out of the University of Southern California examined the core principles of smart growth to see whether any of them actually had any influence on rates of physical activity. The only ones that did, they found, were policies promoting more open space and those that advocated for “distinctive communities with a strong sense of place,” neither of which are particularly linked to density.

And I have to stop there I'm already way over 150 words.

Check it out.. Very interesting article

[IanO]

Read that the other night in hard copy of all things...

Smaller spaces is relative for while I only have 770sqft, I have hundreds of thousands of sqft outside my door that become my kitchen, living room, backyard etc.

[edmonton daily photo]

Ya there is a lot going on in this article..

if I sum it up I would say that the Airport lands would be an example of good developments that foster greener, family living as opposed to making a highrise concrete jungle.

I'm torn... I don't think i fully agree with a lot of the article.

[AShetsen]

Children for centuries grew up and thrived in environments far denser than downtown Toronto. Hell, they still do, all over the world.

The neat thing now, though, is that density has become a badge of honor for the very rich. That's not typical. Where this social trend leads, I don't want to guess.

[edmonton daily photo]

You have to read the article Ashetsen.. its not really about families..

It's a lot about urban form.

[AShetsen]

Urban form is always about families in the end, EDP.

[edmonton daily photo]

Urban form affects many things the way people co habitate is just one part of that. Family or no Family.

[AShetsen]

Which was if you chose to read my first post instead of lecturing as always my point EDP.

The neat thing is that suddenly in the first world affluence and desire for density go hand in hand. This is a little unusual, socially speaking, and where the social trend leads I don't want to guess.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ I just struggled to create a topic head for this article... it wasn't a lecture I was just ensuring the article was much broader than families.

so are you saying low density is a badge of honor or high?

[GreenSPACE]

Urban density is key to smart growth:

"Recent studies have discovered that the appetite for suburban life appears to have peaked. More than ever, respondents tell researchers they would be willing to trade size for location, in other words, live in a smaller house but enjoy access to a greater variety of amenities, the amenities that come with density."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...o-smart-growth

[moahunter]

^thanks Greenspace, in Cities like Toronto many now "get it", but its a bit to late, I hope Edmonton can start making smarter choices sooner. From the article:

Density is one of those things that many feel should be stopped after they have what they want. A highrise condo goes up, people move in, and promptly try to stop another one from going up down the road.

In fact, density is what will save the city and the Greater Toronto Area and enable its 5.5 million inhabitants to prosper in the decades ahead. The alternative — sprawl — is catastrophically wrong. Not only is sprawl environmentally unsustainable, it’s economically ruinous.

Given that congestion already costs the GTHA $6 billion annually, density isn’t just an option, it’s the only option.

[IanO]

A better balance is needed, that is the problem. We need to make central living more viable, affordable and flexible.