What planning fads of today will be looked at as possible mistakes in the future

[miketoronto]

What planning fads which are popular today do you think will be seen as either possible mistakes or not really accomplish the goals which they were planned to in the future.

Here is a partial list of some of the fads my friend and I came up with as ones which will either be failures or not meet the needs of the community in the future, or not have as big a desired affect as planned.

*Items on this list does not mean the fad is bad and should not be done. It just means that we may be putting way too much energy on that fad and it won't really make the huge impact people may think it will have.

-Downtown residential
-Light Rail Transit
-Planned (forced) government sanctioned decentralization of a metropolitan area
-Living and working in the same neighbourhood idea
-Putting more decision making in the hands of residents and neighbourhoods.
Don't take this as meaning residents should not make decisions. It just questions the total takeover in many places of decisions by NIMBY groups, instead of sound decisions made in conjunction with planners and the community, based on facts.

[Doady]

The concept of light rail transit has been around for over a century, even if the term "Light Rail Transit" is new. Someone from Toronto should know this, considering the city is famous for having preserved and modernized its historic streetcar system.

The concept of "live/work" has also been around for over a century. Possibly much longer than that, in fact.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doady

The concept of light rail transit has been around for over a century, even if the term "Light Rail Transit" is new. Someone from Toronto should know this, considering the city is famous for having preserved and modernized its historic streetcar system.

The concept of "live/work" has also been around for over a century. Possibly much longer than that, in fact.

pretty much all the op does is whine about light rail in every thread

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Troll

pretty much all the op does is whine about light rail in every thread

If the LRT travels slower than an average of 40 km/hr it's not worth it imo. 25/km/hr is a sick joke for a route like Eglinton/crosstown that is projected to to have 30,000 riders per day.

But infrequency? Toronto's HRT breaks down everyday. 2-10 minute delays are the norm.

And I'm still baffeled as to why the city refuses to look at Vancouver's Canada Line Technology for Eglinton.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

If the LRT travels slower than an average of 40 km/hr it's not worth it imo. 25/km/hr is a sick joke for a route like Eglinton/crosstown that is projected to to have 30,000 riders per day.

But infrequency? Toronto's HRT breaks down everyday. 2-10 minute delays are the norm.

And I'm still baffeled as to why the city refuses to look at Vancouver's Canada Line Technology for Eglinton.

25 km/hr is about what NYC subway local lines average. Their express lines average about 32-33 km/hr, which is about what the YUS and BD lines in Toronto average. The SRT is probably a little faster, with further spaced stops, and the Sheppard line is obviously much faster, with both further spaced stops AND no turns. I'm guessing the Sheppard line averages around 40km/hr. That is an exception rather than the rule though for rapid rail transit.

[Doady]

This thread is good example why I try not to bother too much with internet discussions anymore. So much misinformation and lies from both sides. On one hand, you have dogmatic and irrational support for LRT and bashing of BRT and subways, and then you have dogmatic and irrational bashing of LRT.

I remember reading article from some urbanist website bashing the Ottawa BRT as a failure, ignoring the fact that Ottawa has the fourth highest transit ridership per capita in US and Canada, and just being disgusted. I feel that same disgust reading Miketoronto's posts and all the other posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

If the LRT travels slower than an average of 40 km/hr it's not worth it imo.

Even many subway lines don't average 40 km/h. The Toronto subway "only" averages 32 km/h. The proposed Hurontario-Main LRT in Mississauga would "only" average around 32 km/h, and that's with some huge stop spacings.

Buses typically travel 12 km/h. Why is being 2 or 3 times faster than bus nto good enough? Why don't you just say all LRT suxors njo matter what?

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

25/km/hr is a sick joke for a route like Eglinton/crosstown that is projected to to have 30,000 riders per day.

30,000 riders per day? It actually 300,000 riders per day.

The buses on Eglinton Ave already carry approximately 60,000 riders per weekday . The City of Toronto has EIGHT bus routes that carry 30,000 riders per weekday or more: 25 Don Mills, 29 Dufferin, 32 Eglinton West, 35 Jane, 36 Finch West, 39 Finch East, 54 Lawrence East, and 96 Wilson/165 Weston Rd. North.

Hell, even the buses in the Hurontario-Main corridor way out in Mississauga and Brampton already carry 30,000 riders. The projected average weekday ridership of the Hurontario-Main LRT is 120,000 riders.

I am strongly opposed to the City of Toronto's Transit City LRT plan. But you, like everyone else in this thread, need to get your facts straight.

[Kingofthehill]

I hope that the modernizations and recladdings of Mid-Century Modern and Brutalist buildings will be looked at with the same scorn as the modernizations of Art-Deco/Victorian/Neo-Classical/etc Pre-war buildings.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I hope that the modernizations and recladdings of Mid-Century Modern and Brutalist buildings will be looked at with the same scorn as the modernizations of Art-Deco/Victorian/Neo-Classical/etc Pre-war buildings.

To that note (although I don't really understand your language, honestly), I think "visors" on the top of buildings will be a fad that we'll look back and laugh at in a few decades (I'm personally already laughing!).

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I hope that the modernizations and recladdings of Mid-Century Modern and Brutalist buildings will be looked at with the same scorn as the modernizations of Art-Deco/Victorian/Neo-Classical/etc Pre-war buildings.

Thats a good one. We are treating a lot of our Mid-Century buildings like we did our Victorian buildings not that long ago.

[Cirrus]

Interesting question, although some of OP's examples are terrible.

Here are some things I think we'll regret, starting with the one OP got right. I'm intentionally avoiding things that used to be universally popular but are now questioned, such as universal home ownership:

• A public process that rewards inaction and caters to NIMBYism. While there are obvious problems with the Robert Moses school of czar-led centralized planning, it does seem clear that we have swung too far in the other direction. Our planning process does not reward democracy, it rewards a vocal minority that too-often has parochial interests. Larger problems are not addressed, because it's easier to just push the problem out of your backyard and then declare victory.
• The EIS process. While environmental analysis is crucial, our current federal process is cumbersome and ineffective.
• HOT lanes. Eventually it is going to become obvious that all highways should have congestion tolling. HOT lanes will be seen as an incremental step. In the places where HOT lane contracts give over control for too long and tolling of the main lanes is held back, the HOT lanes will be viewed as a big mistake.
• Architecture without ornament. It's not that we will abandon modern architecture. It's that modern architecture will evolve away from the minimalist tendencies that have made it anti-pedestrian.

Things like mixed-use, light rail, and the general return to urban living are merely the return to normalcy from a few short decades of planning that sought to reinvent the wheel. Much of what is going on today is specifically not a fad, but in fact a rejection of fads in favor of timeless practicality.

[Segun]

Anchoring "urban" developments with gigantic retail spaces. Its already failing in some instances.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

[*]Architecture without ornament. It's not that we will abandon modern architecture. It's that modern architecture will evolve away from the minimalist tendencies that have made it anti-pedestrian.[/list]

Cirrus, I generally agree with all that you have said except this one. Lack of ornament (perceived or not) is not a planning policy, it's just something you personally dislike.

There are countless examples of minimalist modern architecture (sans ornament of the traditional variety) that create fabulous pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Unfortunately most of them are not in the US (lots of places in Northern Europe come to mind).

I work in a city (Santa Barbara) where minimalism and modernism in general is frowned upon and ornament is typically required at a planning level in order to get approvals. While the resultant building nuances do indeed add something to the local vernacular and quaintness of place, it also tends to feel fabricated...like Disneyland. One need only look at our brand new airport terminal to see the poor results of applique on what should be a modern typology.

But again, that is a discussion of architecture, rather than planning policies or 'fads'.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by plinko

Lack of ornament (perceived or not) is not a planning policy, it's just something you personally dislike.

...

I work in a city (Santa Barbara) where minimalism and modernism in general is frowned upon and ornament is typically required at a planning level in order to get approvals.

You disproved the former claim with the latter. Ornament is a planning policy in Santa Barbara.

We can discuss the wisdom or necessity of the policy, and we can discuss the failure of architects in Santa Barbara (and elsewhere) to work within that constraint without producing buildings that look Disneyfied, but it's pretty undeniable that ornament can be a planning policy.

[PLANSIT]

Roundabouts/Traffic Circles (From a pedestrian perspective)

[MolsonExport]

How are most of the items on the list "mistakes"? Downtown residential is a mistake? (????) Living/working in the same area is a mistake? Light rail is a mistake?


A real mistake is when cities plug revenue gaps with developers fees, and sprawl all the way to the bank with mcmansions and power centres.

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Living/working in the same area is a mistake?

Yeah I am really baffled by this one too. It's hard to think of a con? Maybe if you hate your work?

[miketoronto]

Let me detail some reasons behind my list, since people are so up in arms about it.


Downtown residential
-Cities are putting way too much energy into downtown residential with the idea that it is going to be the saviour of downtown, and turn a dead downtown into a 24 hour hopping place.

This could not be farther from the truth, and while a piece in a successful downtown, residential alone is not going to save downtown.

Downtown needs destinations and a critical mass of people attracted from across a city and region.

Downtown residents alone are not going to save downtown and downtown residential if overdone could even have the opposite effect and actually deaden vibrant areas of downtowns (see Toronto's entertainment district, which is being killed off by residential).

Again downtown residential has a place. But I think planners and city governments are going to see they put way too much eggs into one basket.
Just like stadiums, downtown malls, pedestrian malls, and mega developments, downtown residential alone is not going to fix anything by itself. Yet it is the mega project fix of the 2000's.


Light Rail Transit
-There is an ideology out there right now that LRT is going to fix everything. Put an LRT track down and all of a sudden a street is going to turn into a hip, thriving destination.

This ideology has led cities to promote LRT networks even in places where another option would be better, either subway or bus.

Many cities are spending a ton of money on LRT networks, just because other cities have one, and they want one. All while their bus networks fall apart, etc.

Other cities which need better transit are also building LRT, because it is the in thing to do. And these cities may well face a situation where LRT just can't provide the transportation needed, and they will have to build all over again with higher capacity and grade separated systems.

Or LRT will fail to attract the ridership that another transit system type may, and our cities will be left with lower transit use as a result.

Go to any public meeting and the prevailing comment always made is "well every other city has LRT, so we need one".




Planned (forced) government sanctioned decentralization of a metropolitan area
-Promoting decentralized nodal cities has been a planning fad for a while now. However the results have been very mixed and in fact most plans have not lived up to their expectations.

Promoting decentralization could actually be leading to increased sprawl and car use, because people are able to just live that little further out, if their jobs are moved out of the city to a suburban location.

In addition, despite the idea that people will ride transit to decentralized employment zones. The results have not bore out that way, and decentralized areas face low transit use. In fact the closer one lives to work, the more likely they are too drive, completely going against the idea that moving jobs out of the city to the suburbs will all of sudden make people ride transit or bike to work.

Some decentralization is going to happen naturally. But fully promoting it in a plan may not be the best idea in building a compact, transit friendly metropolitan region.

Living and working in the same neighbourhood idea
-There is this idea now that we have to force people to live and work in the same neighbourhood they live in. I am not against living and working in the same area. But I do think things like purposly slowing down transit to force people to live near work is stupid. And will just lead to more car trips.

At the end of the day with many dual income families, and big companies. The idea of having this utopia where the majority of people walk and bike to work is not turning out that way. Families can't move every time their job changes, and dual income families have to have someone commute in most cases.

While it is good to promote people living close to work if they can. We can't ignore the fact that many people don't want to live next to work or can't. So ideas like not investing in transit to make it hard for people to commute to work, etc is not a good idea.

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Living and working in the same neighbourhood idea
-There is this idea now that we have to force people to live and work in the same neighbourhood they live in.

Can you give a specific example of a city that has put such a policy in place?

[mhays]

^^ How about disincentivizing the exact types of development you want via development fees?

Locally we have a problem with some new public open spaces being overly barren in their design. This won't age well. Gravel doesn't look zen to many people, or for very long. And as a local architecture critic recently said, the public doesn't like concrete as much as many design professionals do. We seem to be segregating shade away from benches.

[matthew6]

Whatever you call this.... Do a 360 - it really is quite impressive

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=...156.88,,0,5.27

Maybe they should have a light rail connecting the stores