Yule Heibel's Library tagged eco_density → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

22 Apr 09

Welcome to Vancouver 2.0 :: Photo Essay :: thetyee.ca

It starts as a photo-essay, but this being the Tyee, the comments muscle their way in to center stage, too. (An aside: I'm getting fed up with all the negative commentary that craps all over all newspaper - including Tyee and my local paper, Times-Colonist - articles that allude to anything creative, innovative, or full of change. It brings out all the usual suspects, who waste no time burying a good idea under cyncism and negativity. Ugh.)

thetyee.ca/...FormShift - Preview

thetyee vancouver eco_density architecture green_buildings futurismo

14 Apr 08

"Don't be dense" by Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles Times

"The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue." An interesting article by Yaroslavsky that initially makes the reader think that he's advocating a sort of nimby-istic "pulling up the drawbridges" mentality, but if the reader perserveres to read the entire piece, it seems his suggestions are really LA-specific. They're not necessarily in conflict with infill development; development around transit routes & hubs; and creation of density in areas that really need it (in our case, downtown). He does bring in late 80s experiences, however, which make you wonder if things haven't irrevocably moved beyond thel contexts he's referencing.

www.latimes.com/...oslavsky13apr13,0,544304.story - Preview

urbanplanning urban_design density los_angeles neighbourhoods nimbyism smartgrowth eco_density affordable_housing

The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue.
Fueling public outrage over growth policies that would significantly increase density are well-grounded fears that, in the clash between overdevelopment and neighborhood preservation, the developers will prevail.
8 more annotations...
- Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings,bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.
  
  There is nothing smart or elegant about such growth. On the contrary. It's development run amok and with an utter disregard for how it affects the livability of the city's neighborhoods. Should these efforts -- the city's version of a state law encouraging greater density; ad hoc zoning changes to double the size of residential development on commercial property to facilitate more density; widespread approval of zoning variances for parking, height and property-line setbacks -- succeed, they will irreparably harm some of our most cherished neighborhoods and diminish our traditional sense of place.
  - - at first blush, this reads like possible nimbyism, but when Y. gets into the nuts & bolts of zoning policies as they relate specifically to his place, Los Angeles, his stance can be seen as well-differentiated, modulated urbanism. However, I could see how this opening volley could become a rallying cry for change-resistant neighbourhoods and neighbours everywhere, too... - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- * Can more housing be built without destroying neighborhoods?
  
  Absolutely. Housing development should be encouraged on the thousands of properties throughout the city that have sufficient lot size and depth relative to surrounding neighborhoods. Such properties can accommodate well-designed, denser and even taller buildings without the collateral damage of traffic congestion, loss of privacy and other community effectsoften associated with such development. In some cases, these projects would even enhance commercial thoroughfares -- such as the Figueroa corridor near USC -- that are in desperate need of revitalization. At short, larger housing projects should be built where they fit.
- * Where can this housing be built?
  
  It belongs in the city's many employment and residential centers -- downtown, Hollywood, Wilshire Center, Harbor Gateway, Warner Center and the Van Nuys Civic Center. These and similar areas can absorb more housing under current zoning laws. In Century City, for instance, developers are converting traffic-generating commercial buildings to residential uses, resulting in more housing and a net reduction in peak-hour traffic.
- Housing should also be built around subway, bus and light-rail stations. Many of these transit stops -- Warner Center, where the Orange Line busway ends in Woodland Hills, is one -- are already employment magnets, and they would be appropriate sites for additional housing as well. But it makes no sense to reflexively boost residential density and building size along every Metro Rapid bus route, as the city's version of the state's density-bonus law allows, when the streets that the buses travel often cross low-density, pedestrian-friendly commercial districts serving some of the city's most charming neighborhoods. The city should be guided by one principle: The scale of development should be informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood. The one-size-fits-all approach embodied in the density-bonus law and the indiscriminate approval of denser residential housing on commercial property is not an appropriate growth strategy for Los Angeles.
  - "The scale of development should be guided... informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood." --> well, that's *tricky* insofar as it can result in a drawbridge or stand-off. At what point do you say, "the character has to change"? And at what point do you say, "the character *deserves* protection"? Why should it? Who determines that? - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- * What can the city do to provide more affordable housing?
  
  It can require developers as a matter of city policy to set aside a certain percentage of units in new buildings for people with low-to-moderate incomes. L.A. doesn't need to offer development bonuses allowing taller and bigger buildings to achieve this.
  - ? really - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- The city also owns a considerable amount of underutilized real estate on which affordable housing could be built. As a council member, I pioneered the creation of several housing developments above city-owned parking lots that were 100% affordable, a policy that should be applied more widely. The county has also made surplus property available to nonprofit developers to build affordable family and senior housing. The office building formerly housing the Department of Public Social Services, at Pico Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in West Los Angeles, is one example.
- It's noteworthy that a major contributing factor to the loss of our affordable housing stock is the demolition and conversion of apartments to make way for condominiums and other luxury housing. Accommodating renters displaced by such developments must be one of the city's top housing priorities.
- The burgeoning neighborhood rebellion we are witnessing throughout the city is the predictable consequence of an increasingly insular and exclusionary planning process.
  - It could also be the result of a vociferous resistance to change. - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note

14 Feb 08

EcoDensity raises fears of crowding without amenities

Crosscut's David Brewster referenced this article in his critique of 2 Seattle developments. Key aspect is that if the amenities aren't delivered, you can't have the density. It won't work -- the amenities HAVE to be first-class. Recall Edward T. Hall and his commentary on Calhoun.

www.canada.com/...story.html - Preview

amenities eco_density frances_bula urban_development vancouver

As well, they worry there isn't enough emphasis on creating affordable housing or complete neighbourhoods with libraries, transit and community services to go with the density.
Lehan said people feel the process is being rushed through and they fear that the new charter will mean that "we will have 40-storey towers that will be built in the middle of nowhere."
- - sounds like a typical NIMBY panic-mongering reaction... - on 2008-02-14
Add Sticky Note
2 more annotations...
- As well, they don't like a postscript added by Coun. Suzanne Anton to consider taller buildings in the city's heritage neighbourhoods of Chinatown, Gastown and the Downtown Eastside.
  - I'd agree with them that historically significant neighbourhoods shouldn't be subject to extreme make-overs. Infill is one thing, getting rid of surface parking lots, ditto. But razing and rebuilding gets trickier, and some areas have protection. As for including the DES...? Not so sure about that one. - on 2008-02-14
  Add Sticky Note
- Colin Gray, chairman of the Dunbar Visions group, which developed the west-side neighbourhood's local plan 10 years ago, said Toderian met the group before Christmas and allayed some of their fears.
  On the other hand, Gray said, residents hear about proposals to build seniors' residences in their neighbourhood that are much higher than the current four-storey limit.
  "There's this pressure to use the seniors' card to get more height. It just feels like there's huge pressure to get higher density."
  - So? Lift the height from 4 to ...what?, 6-storeys? Big deal. That's not exactly "40-storeys towers in the middle of nowhere," is it? - on 2008-02-14
  Add Sticky Note

Genuflecting to the high rises by David Brewster (Crosscut - Seattle)

Crosscut's publisher, David Brewster, calls out the Seattle P-I and the Seattle Times for their gushing endorsements of two major downtown Seattle development proposals (Fifth Ave. twin condo towers by Ishmael Leyva Architects and, also on Fifth Ave., the United Methodist Church block by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca). Brewster points to the curious alliance btw developers and eco-density champions, which is wearing a bit thin in Vancouver, acc. to an article by Frances Bula, which Brewster references (see http://tinyurl.com/333ehj ). In Vancouver, there's talk of putting density & height in formerly sacrosanct areas, like Gastown & Chinatown, too. Some interesting comments showing up in the comments board, too.

www.crosscut.com/...Genuflecting+to+the+high+rises - Preview

architecture crosscut development downtown eco_density seattle urban_design

We get a shower of superlatives: $900 million, according to the New York financiers, 550 feet tall, 200 hotel rooms, and 400-500 condos.
But not to worry: These massive buildings will be "designed for neighborhood," meaning shops along the streetfront. The developers, with the engaging name of Hummingbird Advisors, are going to take a pretty dead block and "make it into a vital, vibrant pedestrian area." Of course, much of the lower level will be a blank wall concealing hotel ballrooms, but that's OK because the Monorail already blocks those views. (The architects' drawing artfully turns the Monorail into gossamer.)
5 more annotations...
- The developer deserves credit for coming up with a scheme to save the old sanctuary (no uses have yet been found), but one wonders at the tradeoffs. A few years hence, if not already, we are going to wonder why downtown Seattle has become such a lightless, windswept, glassy canyonlands. But more vibrant? The office tower will be mighty quiet evenings and weekends. And the amenities of the new condo-hotel towers (open-air arboretum, lots of recreation space) may turn these abodes of "urban aspirationals" into self-contained zones.
  - I think Brewster is on to something in asking after the amenities. They have to be first-class and work well, especially if these aren't residential towers (and therefore dead after hours, as he points out). - on 2008-02-14
  Add Sticky Note
- The reason for all this genuflecting is the alliance of environmentalists, enchanted by the density created; developers eager to cash in on Seattle's "underpriced" real estate market; low-income housing advocates, who get millions in mitigation payments from these luxury towers; and City Hall, salivating over the tax receipts.
  - ...interesting... - on 2008-02-14
  Add Sticky Note
- But now there is some sign that the ecodensity coalition is beginning to feel some internal splits. A good illustration is Vancouver, B.C., where residents are grumbling that the amenities supposed to make all this density tolerable (libraries, transit, affordable apartments) are just not showing up.
- We're tired of our city being raped, razed and regurgitated as just one more homogenized, condo-canyoned McCity stripped of our unique character, style and gritty working class charm.
  - Oh brother... this sounds familiar. Define "charm," please... - on 2008-02-14
  Add Sticky Note

1 - 4 of 4

Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

eco_density