Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Increased density is not good for long term sustainability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Increased density is not good for long term sustainability

    There is an increasingly popular trend among city planners and many residents that sprawling is bad and as such new suburban areas should be as dense as possible.

    But if you look at today's school utilization, you will see two issues:
    1) Demand >> supply in newer areas
    2) Supply >> demand in older areas

    The issue won't go away and will only get worse down the road. Say, after 50 years, the schools that we build for Windermere/Rutherford today will become empty themselves. That's what you have, when all of the houses in one area are built within a very short time span. It's a nightmare to any kind of planning.

    The right way of thinking, IMO, is to encourage a bit of low density from the start and leave room for future developments.

    To be specific:
    Given a Neighbor Structural Plan, only allow single family homes to be built in the first 20 years. Then, the duplex/row house lands can be developed from year 20 to year 40. At last, from year 40, the apartment lands can be used.

    By using this method, infrastructures such as schools (but could also include roads etc) don't have much of a squeezing pressure upfront, while over the years are getting good utilization.
    Last edited by eons; 18-02-2014, 02:32 PM. Reason: Proof Read

  • #2
    ^I agree. In particular about the roads. It seems they want to build boulevards to no where in the new districts. All the density out there and wanting people to work in the core but zero planning put into expanding roads to downtown or creating more free flow access from the new areas to the core.

    Comment


    • #3
      You bring up an interesting viewpoint that could be explored more from an urban sprawl perspective and supporting more density in the core.

      The crux is, though, to have enough tax base in these new neighbourhoods to pay for all the infrastructure that is required to be maintained in the future.
      www.decl.org

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
        ^I agree. In particular about the roads. It seems they want to build boulevards to no where in the new districts. All the density out there and wanting people to work in the core but zero planning put into expanding roads to downtown or creating more free flow access from the new areas to the core.

        Building freeways through the inner city just makes things.

        The goal needs to be one that allows for many forms of transport.

        Building more roads just beings more traffic.. it doesn't solve anything.
        "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

        Comment


        • #5
          Greenspace, is the tax not spread evenly throughout the city? Or does tax dollars collected in say Ward 11 only get spent in Ward 11?

          If the taxes are thrown into a pot and spread evenly throughout the city would it not then be cheaper for the city to encourage developers to increase density within the core and older inner suburbs instead of "sprawling" further out?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
            Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
            ^I agree. In particular about the roads. It seems they want to build boulevards to no where in the new districts. All the density out there and wanting people to work in the core but zero planning put into expanding roads to downtown or creating more free flow access from the new areas to the core.

            Building freeways through the inner city just makes things.

            The goal needs to be one that allows for many forms of transport.

            Building more roads just beings more traffic.. it doesn't solve anything.
            You miss the point being made. And due to the fact that you dont live outside the Henday you will never get the point being made. And before you try and make some sort of argument towards living in the core, stop. Just dont.

            Comment


            • #7
              ^^ I agree that building more roads won't solve the problem.

              This, again, is where I really really don't agree with the direction our city is going. The city is expanding, and yet pours most of its resource and zoning good wills into downtown, encouraging people to come downtown. That is actively creating traffic issues.

              IMHO, a sustainable growth should be organic growth of suburban areas. Each area should have its own mini downtown. Making residents not to have a reason to drive to downtown.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                Greenspace, is the tax not spread evenly throughout the city? Or does tax dollars collected in say Ward 11 only get spent in Ward 11?

                If the taxes are thrown into a pot and spread evenly throughout the city would it not then be cheaper for the city to encourage developers to increase density within the core and older inner suburbs instead of "sprawling" further out?
                With proper road planning, city doesn't have to build/service the idle lots proposed. For example, just leave a 10 acre of RA8 alone 170St with potential right turn in/out access should be fine for the future development and doesn't cost the city anything.

                On the other side of the equation is: with good planning, we can SAVE tax money by not shutting down old schools and building new schools at the same time. With all the human suffering involved, that's easily in the billions over a decade.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                  If the taxes are thrown into a pot and spread evenly throughout the city would it not then be cheaper for the city to encourage developers to increase density within the core and older inner suburbs instead of "sprawling" further out?
                  Exactly. I think what eons is saying is that density should be built in the core, not in the suburbs. Or maybe I read that wrong?
                  www.decl.org

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, supply exceeds demand in older areas and demand exceeds supply in newer areas.

                    The newest area in many cities is in fact the urban core, for that is where the bulk of the population growth takes place
                    Last edited by AShetsen; 18-02-2014, 04:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                      Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                      If the taxes are thrown into a pot and spread evenly throughout the city would it not then be cheaper for the city to encourage developers to increase density within the core and older inner suburbs instead of "sprawling" further out?
                      Exactly. I think what eons is saying is that density should be built in the core, not in the suburbs. Or maybe I read that wrong?
                      I prefer not to use a core vs suburb comparison just to simplify things and avoid unnecessary debate.

                      Let's say, we create a city from scratch. What shall we do? My opinion is to create an artificial sprawl in the beginning that has a low density and keep a substantial amount of land reserved for later development, so that an area will see continuous investment/construction in 50 years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                        Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                        Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                        ^I agree. In particular about the roads. It seems they want to build boulevards to no where in the new districts. All the density out there and wanting people to work in the core but zero planning put into expanding roads to downtown or creating more free flow access from the new areas to the core.

                        Building freeways through the inner city just makes things.

                        The goal needs to be one that allows for many forms of transport.

                        Building more roads just beings more traffic.. it doesn't solve anything.
                        You miss the point being made. And due to the fact that you dont live outside the Henday you will never get the point being made. And before you try and make some sort of argument towards living in the core, stop. Just dont.
                        Because I don't live outside the henday I don't understand... give it a rest.

                        What you fail to understand is the solutions you think are solutions aren't really that sollutiony. This is despite the fact that many people point this out to you...

                        so don't ok.. just don't lol
                        "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by eons View Post
                          Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                          Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                          If the taxes are thrown into a pot and spread evenly throughout the city would it not then be cheaper for the city to encourage developers to increase density within the core and older inner suburbs instead of "sprawling" further out?
                          Exactly. I think what eons is saying is that density should be built in the core, not in the suburbs. Or maybe I read that wrong?
                          I prefer not to use a core vs suburb comparison just to simplify things and avoid unnecessary debate.

                          Let's say, we create a city from scratch. What shall we do? My opinion is to create an artificial sprawl in the beginning that has a low density and keep a substantial amount of land reserved for later development, so that an area will see continuous investment/construction in 50 years.
                          On of the cities I would look to is melbourne followed by paris.
                          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I understand the intent of the OP, but I'm not sure if it really makes sense to implement. One big issue is the actual speed of development: the issues that we are seeing right now with extremely crowded schools AND the rapid development are both issues that are directly related to the current booming economy and population. If the boom slows down both issues will solve themselves: not only will the new families be more spread out in age and not over-tax the schools, but in a less-than booming economy the less desirable land might not be developed until the economy picks up, or until all the expected amenities are in place.

                            We do have a very cyclical economy here in alberta, so if we were to leave all those areas intentionally there would be a real risk that we could hit a prolonged down-cycle before the fallow land is built on, leaving under-utilized schools, amenities and infrastructure indefinitely. The other issue is land ownership. In some neighbourhoods this might be possible, where the whole section is owned by a single developer; but in areas where there is a patchwork of owners who is to say which parcel has to remain vacant for a generation.

                            In general I think it's preferable to develop new areas completely, avoiding leap-frog development, but developing in such a way that re-developing is easier, both by building neighbourhoods more like old ones with main streets and commercial districts that can organically densify, as well as improved zoning so that adding more density on previously developed lot can easily be done.
                            Last edited by highlander; 18-02-2014, 05:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ^ I disagree... high amounts of in migration and low product inventory is actually fueling inner city growth and renovation.

                              keep that suburban inventory low for longer please... open up some more when things calm down.
                              "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X