[archited]

That of course would lead to Houston as being the paragon of success in liveable city building.

Actually a more cogent comparison would be San Antonio which is quite pleasant and livable

 

[Coprolite]

I mean, bit of a logical fallacy being thrown out here.

The quarters…

How about century park, MWTC, Bonnie doon, mckernan, Whikwentowin, grovenor, west jasper place, Lynwood, strathearn, blatchford.

Lots of places that are more suburban and safe besides the quarters.

And we already have dozens of apartment buildings outside of the henday. No one is suggested we demolish those. We just shouldn’t keep building new ones when land 200m from LRT stations is vacant.

And why plop a midrises in mid block Crestwood when you have 142st looking for development on all corners. Start there. Do the 100-400m before worrying about 800m. We aren’t short on TOD land.

I actually really enjoyed living in the Quarters. It was quieter than anywhere I had lived in the city to that point and I had great access to bike infrastructure, transit and amenities. But it's hard to recover from shittyparkinglotitis, especially if the landowners are in no hurry to sell. All of those decades of demolition order after demolition order and the toll of building fires adds up, especially if what was there before can't legally be rebuilt. Not to mention all of the grand visions from the "what if we knock down Chinatown and put it over there" era that just fizzled in the oil bust, and the weird wall of really impersonal buildings with uninviting street presence that popped up on 97 Street.

This is why encouraging infill in core/mature neighbourhoods is a good thing, by the way. It keeps ageing neighbourhoods from reaching this state where you have blocks of lands dominated by abandoned buildings, vacant lots, and Impark's professional blighting services.

 

[wormwood]

Actually a more cogent comparison would be San Antonio which is quite pleasant and livable

I was 14 when I visited but it felt almost European.

 

[thommyjo]

I don't think it's row houses that have people upset...

I also don’t consider rowhouses TOD. I’m talking about 200-400 unit apartments, 6+ stories. And suggesting we should allow the current vacant/underdeveloped land near transit to get developed first before we upzone stuff 10+ minutes away from transit for 6+ stories.

We also should incentivize TODs to more quickly fill in lots all along the valley line and stuff like century park instead of letting greenfield cheapness suck up all the market demand for apartments.

 

[Coprolite]

I also don’t consider rowhouses TOD. I’m talking about 200-400 unit apartments, 6+ stories. And suggesting we should allow the current vacant/underdeveloped land near transit to get developed first before we upzone stuff 10+ minutes away from transit for 6+ stories.

We also should incentivize TODs to more quickly fill in lots all along the valley line and stuff like century park instead of letting greenfield cheapness suck up all the market demand for apartments.

Well, adding a little gentle density to mature neighbourhoods actually is a great way to achieve transit ridership through development, and it's a lot easier to get going than 200-400 unit apartment buildings.

 

[johnnyboy]

And suggesting we should allow the current vacant/underdeveloped land near transit to get developed first before we upzone stuff 10+ minutes away from transit for 6+ stories.

We also should incentivize TODs to more quickly fill in lots all along the valley line and stuff like century park instead of letting greenfield cheapness suck up all the market demand for apartments.

This seems like such common sense it's a bit bewildering it's not actually the case here.

 

[David A]

That of course would lead to Houston as being the paragon of success in liveable city building.

Yes, we are a society with a number of rules so we can function well like stop signs, speed limits, parking limits in some areas and so on.

A lot of people are not happy with the free for all now in older area. Maybe we don't need to go back to what we had before, but having a system that encourages more development where wanted and needed and some restrictions in some other areas is good planning.

 

[thommyjo]

Well, adding a little gentle density to mature neighbourhoods actually is a great way to achieve transit ridership through development, and it's a lot easier to get going than 200-400 unit apartment buildings.

Sorry. I feel like maybe my original posts weren’t read? I’m not talking about 8plexes or infill at all.

I’m responding to a suggestion that we need to expand the TOD potential near transit by allowing 6 story buildings within 800m of train stops.

I’m saying that it’s not a good move when we have so much undeveloped land already right next to train stations and risks losing public trust.

Plopping a 6 story build in the literal middle of meadowlark’s bungalows, a 10+ minute walk to the train, when numerous lots along 156st are vacant and almost all are still bungalows, is silly. We should prioritize density (and spend our “pissing off pennies”) on projects that actually move the needle on transit use, vibrant nodes, and reducing traffic.

 

[ntt1]

Some infill projects in Aspen Gardens over the last decade, before and after. A few lot splits too, not all McMansions, but definitely a lot of them. Seems like 2-3 new teardown projects begin every 6 months - I frequently bike through here.