wolfewood said:
Density like this shouldn't just "happen." There are reasonable limits on what can and should be built. As i42 illustrated for another user once, there is tons of extra land that can be redeveloped in downtown, let alone on the edges of downtown (such as in the Portlands). Tall buildings are cool and can be efficient but super high density isn't always the correct path either.
Click to expand...

You have no idea of what "super density" really is. Don't throw words randomly like this. Downtown Toronto is still sparsely populated. Increase the density 4 folds and I wouldn't call it "super dense".
 
ksun said:
You have no idea of what "super density" really is. Don't throw words randomly like this. Downtown Toronto is still sparsely populated. Increase the density 4 folds and I wouldn't call it "super dense".
Click to expand...

Perhaps by the same token you should refrain from throwing words like "sparsely populated" around as well - because you clearly have no idea what that really is either.

AoD
 
I wonder if a bigoted, message board-based, keyboard commando version of this would have been as popular?

lpp2.jpg
 
Sure, nice cities, but most very dense cities do not provide a higher quality of life, and these aren't even close to the density one would find in somewhere like Dhaka or Karachi. As well, my point was more to the fact that higher levels of density tend to lead to a less than impressive quality of life.

Personally I wouldn't wish a Paris or Tokyo level of density on Toronto. Having space is one of the things that makes Toronto more livable in my opinion.
 
And getting to the point re: density - it doesn't necessarily require height (Paris, Barcelona, etc). Not that it is applicable to this case. As to quality of life, the usual indicators tend to be slanted towards a certain criteria (cost of living, simple amount of green space, safety, whatnot) that tend to favour certain classes of cities and not others. It's not really that useful.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Kind of OT, but perhaps P23 raises a fair point in terms of Paris and Tokyo, although I think London and Singapore are probably better examples. I realize I am arguing now against my earlier point, but new information and all that... There is a very interesting article on density found here:
http://www.livablecities.org/articles/high-density-livability-question


The discussion of Singapore is telling. Perhaps some of the issues with high density are difficult to quantify? Of course then I don't see Singapore or London on lists like this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/daily-chart-5

AlvinofDiaspar makes a great point too about high-rise vs human scale forms of density. I think Ksun often advocates the high-rise form of density. Not sure that high rise living is always better. I know personally I would rather be a bit closer to the street and plan to move out of my high-rise in the next year or so...
 
More density would be welcome. You attain a kind of critical mass which creates conditions for a rich array of amenities - shops and services, medical facilities, entertainment, venues, cafes, bars, stadiums, etc. That's all good stuff, vital for a truly healthy urban experience. I'm happy the city has left behind its Toronto the Good (Toronto the dull?) era and is moving briskly towards something far more interesting and stimulating.

Yes, there is a point at which higher density can create epic problems. We're not there yet. That said, if we don't get our transportation infrastructure act together, we'll actually be stunting our possibilities for growth.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Perhaps by the same token you should refrain from throwing words like "sparsely populated" around as well - because you clearly have no idea what that really is either.

AoD
Click to expand...


Ksun has some interesting ideas as to what constitutes high density.
what's to see beyond Bloor st, Church st and Spadina ave? it is just a huge flat land with low rise houses, just like what you will see in Dallas.
Click to expand...

The entire Bathurst St is not urban, definitely among the worst one can do about a downtown street. It probably can pass as a street in Vaughan with hardly anything taller than 3 stories and worst of all, no retail at all.
Click to expand...

Six years ago when I walked on Queens Quay, I was shocked to find the minute you pass Yonge st, the area looks increasingly suburban and even rural, without even a decent sidewalk, not to mention any amenities.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top