I can talk the talk, but this is really going to test that ……
I live in a fairly walkable town outside one of the most walking and transit oriented cities in the US. I’ve always been a transit and walkable communities advocate.
My town is centered on a train station/bus/taxi/scooter/bicycle hub and we have a traditional walkable “Main Street” with shops and restaurants that we pedestrianize for the summer. We have a new rail trail that will eventually connect to a statewide network, a riverwalk and even kayak rentals in the middle of downtown
Higher density housing is centered on the downtown, dominated by 4-6 story apartment/condos, including residential over commercial. Works great. Surrounding that is a belt of 2-3 story multifamily houses, townhouses, and small apartments. I’m the first street zoned for single family, but I can still walk to the town center, and take the train into the nearby major city.
I even spoke up in favor of new statewide zoning, requiring “as of right” zoning for large apartment buildings near transit …… maybe you see where this is going ……
When I was out walking my dog this morning, I saw construction …. apparently there are a couple huge 6 story apartment buildings going in just a couple blocks away. It all seemed like a great idea until it was my neighborhood. It was a great idea when things were grouped by size. But now it’s a behemoth towering over three deckers and the like, and even looming near single family housing.
I’ve “talked the talk” but really don’t know if I can “walk the walk”. This really seems excessive for the neighborhood.
What do you think? Could you still support higher density housing when it means something twice the height going into your neighborhood, hundreds of tenants where now it’s 3-10 per building? What would you do when you get what you were asking for but it’s in your neighborhood and way out of scale?
You must log in or register to comment.
Remember that the beautiful, vibrant neighbourhoods we campaign for aren’t monocultures, but diverse spaces for all kinds of living (within reason). 4-6 storeys is expected, as are 1-3 and even 26. The magic is in the planning and use, not so much the verticality.
Have a look at Vancouver’s West End for example. I lived there for around 10 years and it’s really doing a great job in all the right categories. There’s some single family homes, some town homes, small apartment blocks, historical homes, and some skyscrapers, all situated around mixed use commercial/residential areas, parks, cycling, and transit. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty great for North America.
Amsterdam, our favourite model (I lived there for 5 years) also has a broad mix of densities. Though it definitely favours 2-4 storeys, there are many different elevations and I lived in a gorgeous 6-storey apartment block off the Veemkade for some of the greatest years of my life.
So don’t worry so much about the height. Worry about the spaces between and how they’re planned. Is the transit good, are they prioritising people over cars? Are there parks and other walkable spaces, as well as space for cafés and grocers? That’s the magic right there.
I finally got pictures
What do you think?
Sounds great!
Could you still support higher density housing when it means something twice the height going into your neighborhood, hundreds of tenants where now it’s 3-10 per building?
100%. Put it in my literal backyard for all I care.
What would you do when you get what you were asking for but it’s in your neighborhood and way out of scale?
Rejoice at the possibility of having a large local social network and get to know the neighbors as they trickle in.
Having grown up in both “single family zoned neighborhoods” (although they’re called something different from where I’m from) and “mixed density neighborhoods” (where 3-4 storey buildings and single family homes are put together), it just feels a little different for the first few days. You get used to it real quick!
I think a lot depends on the actual architecture and the surroundings. I’ve lived in several 4-6 buildings and they were really different - in terms of contact with other neighbors, cleanliness, general vibe and quality of life, … I prefer them because resource consumption for single family houses is insane (at least with the types of buildings in Germany) and they allow for more space to be used for other things, like green spaces, while still keeping everything walkable.
I’ve also lived in those: from trash student apartments to higher end, and all have been really convenient to places. There’s nothing like walking out your door and having the convenience of everything city: from restaurants to nightclubs to baseball to the subway everywhere else. I don’t object to them per se (although I think allowing wood framed buildings that big is a mistake).
However it’s harder to support something so out of scale to a neighborhood.
Does that make me a hypocrite or NIMBY, or is it reasonable to expect something more like what’s there? I like to think it’s reasonable to object to something that out of scale but I can’t describe it without using the same language that NIMBYs do
If there’s housing affordability or availability issues in your area and you oppose what sounds like pretty reasonable higher-density housing (6 stories is basically the minimum for new apartment buildings in my city) I’m afraid to say you’re a NIMBY.
What do you mean by “out of scale”? It’s sounding an awful lot like “it ruins the character of the neighbourhood” which is the catchphrase of NIMBYs everywhere. If you had concerns about whether the existing infrastructure in your neighbourhood can support higher-density housing, I suspect you’d just say that rather than vaguely suggesting the new developments are “out of scale”.
I don’t mean to be rude, I appreciate you having these reflections, and I’m all ears if you care to elaborate further than “out of scale”. However, with the information you’ve shared so far you’re very much coming off as a NIMBY.
Picture a six story block sized building looming over per three deckers and townhouses. It’s twice the height and like 20 times the population of any building around it. It’s too early to see what it will look like but the surroundings are “house style”, and something that big won’t be.
That sounds absolutely reasonable and the sort of mixed density cities should aim towards. If you never build any apartment buildings except in close proximity to existing apartment buildings, how did the first apartment building in your city come to be?
Again, do you have an actual issue with these developments? How does these developments being larger than the surrounding buildings affect you in any way?
Well, maybe it is NIMBY? I think it’s an understandable reflex: things change, there’s a some uncertainty how the neighborhood will be affected, the drawbacks are visible from the start but the benefits are somewhat abstract and in the future. So the first reaction may well be “I do not want that”. But you’re doing the important next step: reflecting this reaction and questioning what exactly it is that disturbs you and whether this is in line with your values/politics/ethics. Maybe this isn’t a great project. But if all you have is some vague feeling then maybe that’s just the discomfort of change and the project(s) will turn out alright?
It was a great idea when things were grouped by size. But now it’s a behemoth towering over three deckers and the like, and even looming near single family housing.
You can’t have a transition without a transitionary period. For the next few years, it’ll likely feel odd and weird but in a few more years, you probably couldn’t imagine the neighbourhood without it and when the next couple of buildings of similar size will appear in the next decade, it’ll all feel normal.
I also think you’re exaggerating a little here. 6 stories isn’t that high, especially when there’s three deckers around.
I grew up in a single story building in a neighbourhood with all kinds of building heights with the highest right around the corner. I don’t know how tall it is exactly but it’s at least 10 stories. It all still works out.
yes, definitely. the increased housing without increasing infrastructure expenses will bring in lots of revenue for parks, services, and other programs to benefit the community.
I too live in a state that’s eliminating stagnating regulation, which in turn is causing my town and neighboring towns to catch up with extreme housing demands. I imagine we both will experience an awkward phase as some lots get updated buildings next to lots that haven’t seen construction in 60+ years.
I view my recent experience as long needed development. There’s no way a developer would plunge that much money into a building if they didn’t believe they could sell the apartments/condos. I’d watch to see how fast they sell out, if they haven’t already. Consider investing in nearby development if the complex sells quick. Maybe also consider moving further down the train line if you’re looking for a less dense neighborhood.
Pointing out that the proposed development would be out of place does not make you a hypocrite. Maybe you and any like-minded neighbors can explain your viewpoint, emphasizing that you would be happy with a smaller apartment building.
It may be that in a few decades, such structures will not look so out of place in your neighborhood. Developers seem to think there’s a demand. You live in a desirable location.
I can commiserate. I’m in a similar area, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments, a few blocks from a walkable downtown. I don’t think a 6 story building would be aesthetically pleasing next to the 2-3 story structures near me.
With that said, I emailed my representatives, and hope to attend the city meeting in support of a new zoning plan allowing for more apartments and businesses, without parking minimums in my neighborhood.
Prioritizing your aesthetic pleasure over others’ access to housing is peak NIMBY.
That’s valid.
I do think it’s reasonable to have an interest in what kind of development is approved and funded. I wouldn’t support developers who wanted to build McMansions, and luxury condos are less appealing than affordable housing. I expect there could be some extreme, unrealistic case in which you too might oppose a specific development, even if it was high density.
Aesthetic appeal (and yes, NIMBYism) is what kept a lot of small cities in North America, including mine, from being replaced by strip malls.
Of course, this line of reasoning could be continued to oppose anything and everything.
It’s too late to voice displeasure: the elevator core is already at six stories and the foundation is in. I guess that’s what happens when you don’t pay attention
Yeah I am walking the walk. I live in a mid-rise and there are zoning applications for highrises. I’m going to advocate for non-market/not-for-profit/co-op housing in my area. I will support affordable higher density housing even if it means I will be displaced to make way for it. We aren’t going to solve the housing and rent crises, and also improving transit if we keep opposing things due to them “feeling out of place”.
What your city might be struggling with is the “missing middle”. This may sound insensitive but where your single family home is, a 3 to 7 storey building needs to be. Then the high density doesn’t feel out of place between a bunch of medium density, and further the low density just outside of that doesn’t feel out of place next to medium density.
Problem is many medium density buildings are old because city governments have been making it difficult to build medium density through their bylaws.
I don’t mind the additional people as long as they’re not driving around. It means more activities, more public services, more hot singles in my area.
Blocking sunlight or a nice view is a harder pill to swallow, but that’s life and there are ways to adapt.
We don’t have zoning here like you do in NA. We get more and more new mixed neighbourhoods with family houses (ground floor + first floor usually) sprinkled between mid-size apartments buildings (ground floor + 5 levels on top). There are shops, schools, kg, restaurants and bars in the ground floor of the apt buildings, people living there has a parking spot underneath and are 10 minutes walk from the commuting train. They are all built with an oasis mindset : limited street level parking, trees and walkable paths between the buildings, field type areas between them with lots of trees and grass where people can go enjoy summer and kids can play.
We are a culture of owners so most of the apts and houses are lived in by the people who own them. A few might be real estate investment but if they are rented, it’s for families that stay long term.
Overall, it’s quite nice and I’m quite sad we didn’t build those neighbourhoods in the 70/80s instead of theee gigantic apt complexes with concrete everywhere and next to it rows of houses.
What are you even afraid is going to happen? Cannot wrap my head around this.
The usual nimby stuff.
- It’s a small quiet street that can’t handle the traffic. You know they all will need a car even with transit for most things
- narrow sidewalks that can’t handle if they walk, and really no room to expand without closing the street
- the yards are already small, as an urban neighborhood but they generally exist. Where will greenery go?
- neighboring houses in permanent shade
- “changing the character of the neighborhood” because where you used to have houses, now a huge apartment block.
Really the thing is the excessive change. I’m in board with allowing taller increments everywhere, on board with expanding the borders of high density areas. I’m in board with a progression from single family to double/triple to multi-family, then separately, onto apartment blocks, then taller, etc.
This just seems like plopping something excessively larger as an apartment block down into the middle of a multifamily neighborhood where there’s a range of sizes but all on similar scale
Why should the “character of the neighborhood” not change with the rest of the world? Your concerns seem so petty next to the concerns of the people who need that housing. If you’re so well off that you can afford to worry about such trivial concerns, then why don’t you use your vast privilege to move somewhere that suits you better? Someplace expensive where they don’t have sidewalks at all so you don’t have to be bothered about other people’s struggle to survive.
Because I’d much rather advocate for controlled growth of housing to also support existing residents, as well as grow infrastructure to match. I’d rather focus that growth closer to our transit hub and walkable town center. I’d rather we have an overall growth pace rather than plopping down a huge apartment block in the middle of more middle range housing at a more human scale
