Brent is in Sydney, Australia – and here’s the message.
From the Financial Review:
No city ever solved traffic problems with more freeways, says prominent planner Brent Toderian.
Vancouver’s former chief planner said freeways “lobotomised” cities, pointing to Sydney’s Cahill Expressway (below), which runs above Circular Quay.
“At least your barrier has a train associated with it . . . our city connects with the water, we have no barriers, but would have if we said yes to this kind of infrastructure,” he said.
At the Planning Institute of Australia’s annual conference in Sydney on Tuesday, Mr Toderian said allowing people to move around easily between home and work was one of the most important factors of good land-use planning. “We never built freeways in the first place, so we never had to have discussions about tearing them down like so many other cities have,” he said. …
.
“You have to acknowledge there is a lot of bad density out there, a lot of tall towers that were poorly done, never should have been allowed by the city.
“Then the community points at them and says, ‘if that’s what you’re talking about, we’re never supporting density, we’re never supporting tall towers’, and yet there are plenty of other tall towers that have been done very well,” Mr Toderian said.
Building to maximise returns without accounting for livability was counterproductive and built opposition towards density, he said. “You will never get far talking about density by threatening things people love.”
Mr Toderian believes the success or failure of a city depends on how well its suburbs work. He said minimising sprawl is also essential as cities grow. “Suburbia does not have to equate to sprawl . . . if you’re designing your suburbs to be auto-dependent, that is sprawl.” …
Vancouver’s bus system was the “bedrock” of its planning and transport system as predictable buses made public transport more attractive for passengers than driving.
Increasing densities around railway stations was also important to bring people closer to their jobs and reduce car dependency. The planner said Australian cities were under-capitalising on that opportunity.
“We could only wish for that kind infrastructure and yet you don’t have the density around it to fully take advantage of it,” Mr Toderian said, referring to Sydney’s fleet of double-decker trains.
“You have to acknowledge there is a lot of bad density out there, a lot of tall towers that were poorly done, never should have been allowed by the city.”
Wow, this is the first time I’ve heard someone mention outright that there is a dark side to the Vancouverist model. Does anyone have examples? Where is this ‘bad density’ in Vancouver? …Joyce-Collingwood comes to mind for me, at least from the standpoint of vibrancy, pedestrian-scale and sense of community. It’s a place where there’s a lot of towers and residents but no real neighbourhood heart. No Westend-style high streets, no community hub. Just anonymous towers. When did you ever hear someone say, “Let’s go to Joyce-Collingwood and take in the ambiance”?
When people in the Woodland/Commercial Drive area or Main St oppose density increasing in their neighbourhoods, I think that is what they think of: architecturally bland or cookie-cutter developments creating a soulless campus of condos–often demolishing quirky and culturally interesting buildings to do so (think the Waldorf).