top | item 39708063

(no title)

reso | 1 year ago

I say this all as a YIMBY who is very happy to see 20k new units added to vancouver: something feels off about the plans for the Jericho lands but I can't describe it.

I feel like when you have these mega developments where 10 condos go up all at once in the space of a few blocks, they end up as "bedroom neighborhoods", where people sleep but don't do anything else. There are a lot of these happening in Canada right now. There's one on Victoria in Waterloo. Concord place in Toronto is another example. I don't see street life there. I only see people going to or coming from somewhere else.

The best neighborhoods are the ones where there is a broad-strokes master plan, but beneath that, some amount of decentralization in implementation. Then you get a diversity of ideas about how to live all in one place.

Maybe there are words for this I don't know.

discuss

order

munificent|1 year ago

It's not exactly what you're getting at, but you might enjoy Christopher Alexander's essay "A City is not a Tree". It also talks about why highly planned cities can end up not working and feeling "right" in the way that older more incrementally-grown ones can.

ttul|1 year ago

Take Tokyo for example. It’s ugly and massive and sprawling but, connected with amazing transit, there is not only plenty of housing for everyone at all income levels, but the place is also just totally rad.

smallmancontrov|1 year ago

It would be more convincing to rage against planning if the backdrop wasn't a situation clearly created by the complete absence of planning. Obviously there's a middle ground. This isn't it.

wnc3141|1 year ago

If it is discontinuous with the broader urban fabric this is definitely a risk.

Look up Ørestad in Copenhagen - a massive master planned area that never gained any of the hoped for vitality you would see elsewhere in the city.

A decent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OMxzXsufq8

hdlothia|1 year ago

I think the tough part is it's hard to master plan these thing sometimes. Is it better to limit restrictions and let people put coffee shops and bars where they want?

konschubert|1 year ago

Ørestad looks nice on street view. Give it some time, maybe?

I think you're right that decentralised planning will create a more diverse cityscape, but your example seems fine...

jjjjj55555|1 year ago

It seems like it had othe problems apart from being discontinuous from the city. There are lots of areas like this in the US which are contiguous with the city, that still end up as dead zones.

Did anyone really believe this was a good idea? I feel like the developers' need to turn a profit and the government's need to impose itself don't leave any good ideas on the table. Instead they focus on packaging up the same bad ideas just with different marketing.

When it inevitably doesn't work as promised, they just say oops, and move onto the next project.

brailsafe|1 year ago

I disagree about master plan neighborhoods being better. It's just way too much ownership, control, and responsibility for one developer or one period of time, usually. Imo, master planned neighborhoods are an optimistic dismissal of the idea that organic evolution of a neighborhood should be allowed to happen, and a massive bet on whatever gets built being great. Often this takes place as a huge cul-de-sac suburb with one place designated for a gas station and a few shops, or as just an isolated parcel where most of the businesses end up being franchises and people drive out to visit other places rather than shopping nearby. In the prairies, these developments build over wetlands on the outskirts where land is cheapest and it's all boilerplate garbage that the developer has decided in advance it's probably everything everyone needs. A sort of "This is where the houses go, this is where the commercial is, here's the rest of the city". Everything ends up looking pretty samey and dull.

In other cases, when it happens in a city, like in Burnaby or Oakridge, it ends up displacing in some way or another way more people than is necessary, because they have a grand vision to replace 10 blocks of housing or something.

zaptheimpaler|1 year ago

I think you're basically describing a typical suburb and I agree those suck. However I live pretty close to the Jericho lands and there's plenty going on here. Both 4th & broadway are nearby with lots of shopping/dining etc. and there are big parks/beaches nearby. I think the neighbourhood will get even better with more residents.

brimwats|1 year ago

Yeah it's hardly an inactive place; I'm sure as the towers go up some of the single story houses will sell and Broadway will expand. Especially as the new skytrain stations go in

Manuel_D|1 year ago

This honestly sounds pretty chill to me. Having residential neighborhoods that are quieter, but still close to downtown and accessible on public transit, seems like a great situation for me. Not everyone wants to live in the hustle and bustle of downtown.