Ruckus
Mar 2, 2008, 1:34 AM
While reading through the Star Phoenix this morning I happily discovered an article highlighting the benefits associated with high density communities.
The most surprising and encouraging thing about the article is the SP opted to locate it under the "Homes" section (on first page no less), typically "Homes" features the newest suburban family showhome (clever ;) ).
Taller buildings can improve communities
Avi Friedman, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, March 01, 2008
The woman who spoke at the cities of Langford and Colwood's town hall meeting had a hesitant, soft voice.
"We live in a family-oriented place," she said. Raising her voice a bit, she added, "We do not want to see tall apartment buildings built here. We like our single-family homes and we would like it to stay this way." There was some nodding in the crowd and voices of support.
The concerns raised in the towns surrounding Victoria on Vancouver Island are often expressed nowadays across Canada. In their effort to halt urban sprawl, planners and elected officials are attempting to introduce bylaws and approve projects that will see taller buildings constructed in older and new neighbourhoods as well as in town centres.
It is not an easy undertaking, since over 60 per cent of Canadians reside in single family home in low-density communities and living spaciously is part of our dwelling culture.
The negative effects of urban sprawl are well documented. Since the beginning of the 20th century, and especially after the Second World War, poor development practices have left noticeable scars on our surroundings.
Forested landscapes and green fields were cleared to make room for residential subdivisions with wide roads and lawns. Homes have swollen in size and complexity and have consumed excessive amounts of energy to keep them warm in winter and cool in summer.
Such practices have had immediate and long-lasting damaging effects on both the local and global environments. Spreading ourselves around also means reliance on private cars.
The growing number of vehicles also means health risks, greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming. Although the particular composition of motor vehicle exhaust varies according to the type of fuel, the primary constituents that pose health risks are present throughout.
In addition to the health risks, emissions from vehicles also pose an imminent threat to the general environment.
Between 70 and 90 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions in most cities come from motor vehicles. Cars also contribute to the greenhouse effect, and in turn to climate change, through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O). According to a report by the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development, road transport contributes 15 to 20 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
Despite the health and environmental risks of fuel emissions, many Canadians went on to purchase larger cars, according to Natural Resources Canada's 2005 report on energy efficiency trends in Canada, performance levels, or horsepower, of the average car owned by Canadians increased by 32 per cent, from 118 horsepower in 1990 to 156 horsepower in 2003.
Car-dependent suburban developments contributed to altering places radically.
Natural and agricultural landscapes were built and paved over to create what author James Howard Kunstler called "the Geography of Nowhere."
The marking of vibrant urbanity, like the town square, roads and commerce that in older towns took centuries to evolve and grow organically happened in suburbia overnight. The rustication and aging necessary to create a sense of real place where residents, businesses and institutions mix did not materialize.
Like Langford and Colwood, many municipalities are facing tough choices: to continue to permit single-family dwellings only or to allow, or even encourage, apartment buildings and multi-family homes?
If halting sprawl, building affordable housing and creating better environments is the goal, the choice is clear. Current suburban densities of four to seven dwelling units per acre (10 to 17 dwelling units per hectare) need to be augmented to 15 to 35 dwelling units per acre (37 to 86 units per hectare) at the very least to create active and vibrant places.
Also, as our population becomes demographically diverse and singles, single parent families, childless couples and the elderly increase their share, creating communities with mixed housing types makes greater economic and social sense.
In existing neighbourhoods lower floors or basement levels can turn independent and rented out. Free-standing structures known as Garden Suites or Granny Flats can be constructed at the rear of new or existing homes for extended family living. When a single-story structure is demolished it can be replaced by a two-story, not by a "monster home," with little effect on streetscape.
We may also want to reconsider building heights, which were historically set at 35 feet (10.7 meters) -- the tallest spot that a fireman's ladder could reach many decades ago. An additional five feet (1.5 metres) and a different roof angle will enable people to have living space in an attic. Small businesses such as cafes, bookstores, dental clinics and home offices should be permitted in the heart of these communities.
Fear by citizens about altering the sense of place of their towns is partially true.
Yet, building more low-density single-family dwellings stands to change a place even more. Constructing taller buildings offers more opportunities to leave more green patches, build fewer roads and reduce traffic.
Often, it is easer to retool planning schemes than retool people's minds. Curbing sprawl and reducing environmental threats like global warming will require a joint effort and understanding by all.
(Ottawa Citizen)
avi.friedmanmcgill.ca
Source (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/homes/story.html?id=0c01b92b-e302-42cf-a97a-834cc07d127a&p=1)
*****
Mr. Friedman stated our growing list of concerns quite concisely (e.g. energy consumption, affordable housing, quality of our environment) and suggests a solution for many of Canada's urban issues begins with the acceptance of a philosophy, or new attitude towards Canadian urban living: pro-density.
Unfortunately Mr. Friedman neglected to tie in public transit or other means of personal transportation with his pro-density position, although, I suppose it may have been implied through his criticism of private vehicle use.
Overall, a short and well written article which I expect enlightened at least a few Saskatonians whom are not usually exposed to such urban issues.
Here's to more high-rise construction throughout Canada :cheers:
The most surprising and encouraging thing about the article is the SP opted to locate it under the "Homes" section (on first page no less), typically "Homes" features the newest suburban family showhome (clever ;) ).
Taller buildings can improve communities
Avi Friedman, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, March 01, 2008
The woman who spoke at the cities of Langford and Colwood's town hall meeting had a hesitant, soft voice.
"We live in a family-oriented place," she said. Raising her voice a bit, she added, "We do not want to see tall apartment buildings built here. We like our single-family homes and we would like it to stay this way." There was some nodding in the crowd and voices of support.
The concerns raised in the towns surrounding Victoria on Vancouver Island are often expressed nowadays across Canada. In their effort to halt urban sprawl, planners and elected officials are attempting to introduce bylaws and approve projects that will see taller buildings constructed in older and new neighbourhoods as well as in town centres.
It is not an easy undertaking, since over 60 per cent of Canadians reside in single family home in low-density communities and living spaciously is part of our dwelling culture.
The negative effects of urban sprawl are well documented. Since the beginning of the 20th century, and especially after the Second World War, poor development practices have left noticeable scars on our surroundings.
Forested landscapes and green fields were cleared to make room for residential subdivisions with wide roads and lawns. Homes have swollen in size and complexity and have consumed excessive amounts of energy to keep them warm in winter and cool in summer.
Such practices have had immediate and long-lasting damaging effects on both the local and global environments. Spreading ourselves around also means reliance on private cars.
The growing number of vehicles also means health risks, greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming. Although the particular composition of motor vehicle exhaust varies according to the type of fuel, the primary constituents that pose health risks are present throughout.
In addition to the health risks, emissions from vehicles also pose an imminent threat to the general environment.
Between 70 and 90 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions in most cities come from motor vehicles. Cars also contribute to the greenhouse effect, and in turn to climate change, through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O). According to a report by the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development, road transport contributes 15 to 20 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
Despite the health and environmental risks of fuel emissions, many Canadians went on to purchase larger cars, according to Natural Resources Canada's 2005 report on energy efficiency trends in Canada, performance levels, or horsepower, of the average car owned by Canadians increased by 32 per cent, from 118 horsepower in 1990 to 156 horsepower in 2003.
Car-dependent suburban developments contributed to altering places radically.
Natural and agricultural landscapes were built and paved over to create what author James Howard Kunstler called "the Geography of Nowhere."
The marking of vibrant urbanity, like the town square, roads and commerce that in older towns took centuries to evolve and grow organically happened in suburbia overnight. The rustication and aging necessary to create a sense of real place where residents, businesses and institutions mix did not materialize.
Like Langford and Colwood, many municipalities are facing tough choices: to continue to permit single-family dwellings only or to allow, or even encourage, apartment buildings and multi-family homes?
If halting sprawl, building affordable housing and creating better environments is the goal, the choice is clear. Current suburban densities of four to seven dwelling units per acre (10 to 17 dwelling units per hectare) need to be augmented to 15 to 35 dwelling units per acre (37 to 86 units per hectare) at the very least to create active and vibrant places.
Also, as our population becomes demographically diverse and singles, single parent families, childless couples and the elderly increase their share, creating communities with mixed housing types makes greater economic and social sense.
In existing neighbourhoods lower floors or basement levels can turn independent and rented out. Free-standing structures known as Garden Suites or Granny Flats can be constructed at the rear of new or existing homes for extended family living. When a single-story structure is demolished it can be replaced by a two-story, not by a "monster home," with little effect on streetscape.
We may also want to reconsider building heights, which were historically set at 35 feet (10.7 meters) -- the tallest spot that a fireman's ladder could reach many decades ago. An additional five feet (1.5 metres) and a different roof angle will enable people to have living space in an attic. Small businesses such as cafes, bookstores, dental clinics and home offices should be permitted in the heart of these communities.
Fear by citizens about altering the sense of place of their towns is partially true.
Yet, building more low-density single-family dwellings stands to change a place even more. Constructing taller buildings offers more opportunities to leave more green patches, build fewer roads and reduce traffic.
Often, it is easer to retool planning schemes than retool people's minds. Curbing sprawl and reducing environmental threats like global warming will require a joint effort and understanding by all.
(Ottawa Citizen)
avi.friedmanmcgill.ca
Source (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/homes/story.html?id=0c01b92b-e302-42cf-a97a-834cc07d127a&p=1)
*****
Mr. Friedman stated our growing list of concerns quite concisely (e.g. energy consumption, affordable housing, quality of our environment) and suggests a solution for many of Canada's urban issues begins with the acceptance of a philosophy, or new attitude towards Canadian urban living: pro-density.
Unfortunately Mr. Friedman neglected to tie in public transit or other means of personal transportation with his pro-density position, although, I suppose it may have been implied through his criticism of private vehicle use.
Overall, a short and well written article which I expect enlightened at least a few Saskatonians whom are not usually exposed to such urban issues.
Here's to more high-rise construction throughout Canada :cheers:
