ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[mpd618]

Lots of those houses you’re speaking of have been “viable” right next to the central part of the city for a century or so. The successive owners have built admirable communities, and aren’t about to surrender their investments, their roots, and their faculties of critical thinking just because you in your own interests would like to label them “unviable”.

OK, so if we can't expand the geographic scope of growth from downtowns into adjacent neighbourhoods, then we're going to need to build much denser and taller in the downtown.

You seem now to be acknowledging that there will be “spillover parking”. So can we now lighten up on the warranty that high density near transit will not have parking demand? I mean, you know that a single-family detached house behind The Red has had its “BY” become a parking lot for that building. You know that people may contend with 144 Park or the Kaufman Lofts because there is not provision for their second cars. You know that residents of The Bauer Lofts complain of inadequate visitor parking. So let’s grant that “NIMBYs” are not always just paranoid, and that they may dare to suggest that development be prepared to sustain its own attachment to the automobile.

I don't buy into the premise behind the term, namely that there is some fixed amount of demand for parking and that if the building doesn't accommodate all of it on site, then the parking will necessarily go into adjacent streets. I think that the amount and cost of parking provided shapes the demand and impacts how people choose to get around, in particular if they live or work on the site. Visitor parking is an interesting point, and I think it's by far the most reasonable application of parking requirements. But it can also be solved using shared parking garages at market rates. If we put a price on curbside parking, perhaps in concert with a resident permit system, that would reduce the parking externalities.

[mpd618]

I agree with a lot of what you say. Out of curiosity, what entails "medium-density" to you, though? "Single-family detached housing" can be dense enough to support transit and other uses within walking distance. Actually, here in Kitchener-Waterloo, it did, and those neighbourhoods that now seem adjacent to the downtowns were streetcar suburbs with commercial mixed in, and where many people could walk to their jobs, most could take transit to their jobs, and most people did walk to do shopping and run errands. Before the car, there was no reason to set houses far back from loud, dangerous streets, and houses close to the street created the kinds of density that made these things possible. Again: it's possible to achieve a fair bit of density even with detached family homes.

Medium-density could be, perhaps, the equivalent of streets with two or three storey street walls - i.e. without the in-between spaces for cars and setbacks.

I think a greater density than in the past is needed to support transit, because it means supporting enough of it so that the transit is competitive with the automobile. But in terms of the history, my understanding is that these old subdivisions are far less dense than they were initially, with far fewer people living per house.

[BuildingScout]

BuildingScout
Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

I’d be very surprised if Besançon was a free-and-easy demolition town. France must be one of the most rigorous preservers of architectural heritage on the face of the Earth. And not only does it mandate conservation. A family whose modern (but “compatible”) home I stayed in near St. Malo was describing to me how it took 3 successive building plans to satisfy local authorities that their design would not disrupt the character of the surrounding historic structures.

These are unrelated. Not being afraid to take a structure down doesn't mean that you do not have to ask for permission. The point is you do have to ask for permission, but it is routinely granted if the building is unremarkable. Just being an old structure is not enough of a reason to keep a building.

We fail on both counts: on the one hand we let the very nice old Kitchener city hall be taken down and then we have heart attacks over Barra Castle's demolition.

These two straw man examples on the far ends of the spectrum beg the question. Serious initiative regarding the ones in between is the issue.

There are many other examples from where this comes from. The dry cleaners on Victoria St. and half the properties in that report were unremarkable. So much so that in this case the recommendations were rejected. But this shows the tenor: defend everything and anything.

We have a meddling planning department unafraid to stop a project because the parking lot isn't large enough yet routinely lets really bad plans go through. We also have a heritage committee who sees itself as a defender of the old instead of a defender of the remarkable.

I've posted plenty of pictures here of new construction for example in Strasbourg, Paris and Prague with new daring buildings smack in the middle of historical downtown. Can you imagine this ever been allowed here? The heritage committee would have a mass heart attack.

I am hard-pressed to recall “the heritage committee” here objecting to daring buildings smack anywhere. I do recall many instances of objection to removal of the “historical”. Where on the spectrum lies the appropriate resistance to demolition is the real issue. Juxtaposition of the old and the “new daring” can be stimulating – see the area of The High Line in Manhattan – as long as there is enough of each. And both the locals and the touristic public seem to find a well-conserved place like Besançon appealing. Thus my admittedly facetious commentary on the Besançon train tour.

The heritage committee would oppose the demolition to begin with, as they are wont to do when the building clocks at over 100 years. Then the planning committee starts talking about "respecting the character of the street" which is code for nothing daring goes (not even four stories in Uptown Waterloo). There is even a name for this attitude to planning, though the word escapes me at this very minute.

I agree 100% that juxtaposition is the way to go. Is how cities evolve. Locally we do not have much of it. The Breihaupt block comes to mind.

[MidTowner]

Medium-density could be, perhaps, the equivalent of streets with two or three storey street walls - i.e. without the in-between spaces for cars and setbacks.

I think a greater density than in the past is needed to support transit, because it means supporting enough of it so that the transit is competitive with the automobile. But in terms of the history, my understanding is that these old subdivisions are far less dense than they were initially, with far fewer people living per house.

You're expressing preference for a form, not a particular level of density. Density is measured in people or jobs per unit of area. I think what most people understand to be medium-density can be achieved with single family homes or, more likely, a mix of uses which include single family homes.

Again, the neighbourhoods you're discussing did support transit in the past. There's a lot of other things (hidden subsidies to cars, for instance) that make transit non-competitive with transit. You make a good point about smaller families living in the same houses as did in the past, but I'm not sure how much less density that means. If you have two kids in a house instead of four, that might be problematic for the viability of the local school, but is it meaningfully less dense in terms of supporting transit, commercial, and so on?

[eizenstriet]

   

Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

I knew Besançon sounded familiar. I see it is quite close to a city where our daughter stayed years ago on a student exchange.
 
It does not look or sound like a place Kieswetter Demolition should be looking to set up a foreign office:
 
 
http://about-france.com/cities/besancon.htm

"Cradled in a loop of the river Doubs, the ancient city of Besançon is one of the best preserved historic cities in France…

The whole of the old centre of Besançon - the central area of which is pedestrianised - is a delightful urban environment that has survived more or less intact against the onslaughts of modernism; the old streets are lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century, built in the local two-coloured limestone…"
 
On the other hand, it is “progressive”:
 
"The city is also served by the brand new Rhine-Rhone TGV route, and has direct TGV services from Paris in less than 2h 30, as well as from Lille, Lyon, Strasbourg, Marseille, Basel and Zurich…

Besançon is reputed as having one of the best urban public transport systems in France…"
 

A very appealing place with good municipal judgment. Thanks for pointing me to it, Canard.

[Canard]

My pleasure - France is a treasure trove of wonderful public transport systems - not only trams/light rail and high speed rail, but a handful of fully-automated rubber-tyred light metros (VAL). In fact, I will be visiting Rennes in 2018 specifically to see their new "Ligne b" which is the world premiere of Siemens CityVal technology.

[BuildingScout]

Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

"Cradled in a loop of the river Doubs, the ancient city of Besançon is one of the best preserved historic cities in France…

The whole of the old centre of Besançon - the central area of which is pedestrianised - is a delightful urban environment that has survived more or less intact against the onslaughts of modernism; the old streets are lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century, built in the local two-coloured limestone…"

Which proves my point. A place that doesn't demolish at all (like Bruges) would have all the buildings from the same era. Besançon's on the other hand span five hundred years. How do you achieve that if not through judicious demolition?

And the fact that somehow they stopped in the early twentieth century is plain false. Here's one Besançon's better known buildings by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma:



But surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:






Of particular interest are the castle up on the hill and the medieval warehouse abutting it to its right.

[plam]

My pleasure - France is a treasure trove of wonderful public transport systems - not only trams/light rail and high speed rail, but a handful of fully-automated rubber-tyred light metros (VAL). In fact, I will be visiting Rennes in 2018 specifically to see their new "Ligne b" which is the world premiere of Siemens CityVal technology.

I think this rubber tire metro thing is a crock. I spent a lot of time in my youth on Montreal's rubber tired metros. Part of the deal was that they were supposed to give a smoother ride. But they are way bumpier than all types of rail that I've been on.

[BuildingScout]

Here are some other views of this "15th-early 20th century" town, showing late 20th century construction in the historical areas:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.2353116,6...312!8i6656

https://goo.gl/maps/YDLivsjGAC42

[BuildingScout]

I think this rubber tire metro thing is a crock. I spent a lot of time in my youth on Montreal's rubber tired metros. Part of the deal was that they were supposed to give a smoother ride. But they are way bumpier than all types of rail that I've been on.

Never heard a claim about smoothness. They are quieter though. I've taken the Montreal, Paris and Mexico City rubber tire metros and they are equally smooth to rail based ones but way quieter. Interestingly enough when an open competition was held in NY city for replacement technology rubber tire Bombardier metros won, but people rose up and said that screeching metros were of historical value and reversed the decision (I kid you not).

[tomh009]

... and back to Kitchener for a moment: here is the latest at Charles & Benton.

[eizenstriet]

Original questionable premise:

Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

End of laborious process:

But surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:

I undertake that these will be my final relections on the saga of Besançon, France, the City with a new LRT system.

My reflections are no longer on the City itself, though it is worthy of study, but on the laborious process of creating a factual dog to be wagged by the tail of a questionable premise.


It struck me as curiously coincidental that the city referenced by Canard for its attractive LRT system should also have achieved a unique reputation premised by BuildingScout for “taking down ugly buildings”.
 
Some cursory research seemed to verify, however, that - contrary to the premise - Besançon’s “delightful urban environment…has survived more or less intact”. I so reported, as a matter of interest, and because the premise was obviously designed to be applied mutatis mutandis to Waterloo Region.
 
However, BS claimed as a fact, without citation, that the description of the city’s “old streets … lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century” was irrefutable confirmation of the original proposition, now described as “judicious demolition”.


Of course, it is not difficult to imagine other paths by which an ancient city could end up with a range of architectural legacy, but I did in fact make the further effort to find citation for BS’s claim for Besançon’s subtle demolition renown. Still, I kept coming up with citations for its conservation renown. Well, OK.

Yet the laborious thesis process proceeded to additional bolstering by BuildingScout in the form of proof of the falsity (?!) of a straw man claim (?!) that “somehow they stopped [building] in the early twentieth century”. Huh?

And the refutation of this straw man claim involved a modern building with a further straw man claim that “surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:”

In any event, photos followed of “one Besançon's better known buildings by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma”. So here we had, with this admittedly interesting modern supplement, the culmination of the legacy of Besançon, The Town that “Culling of Heritage” Built - and were back full circle to the original premise. We were left to assume that some inferior Renaissance chateau, perhaps, had yielded to the prudent process of “judicious demolition” and replacement.

Research of the building shows that the project sits on a 2 ha brownfield site, in a former industrial area, and that - ironically for the purveyor of the original thesis - the new structure “wraps an old brick warehouse, creating a glassed-in box”. So we leave our examination of the wagging factual dog with an unintended illustration that this town preserves in juxtaposition even its least remarkable heritage – a 1930’s brick warehouse.


As promised, enough with Besançon. At this point, it’s catch-and-release, and back to fishin’ in Waterloo Region.

[notmyfriends]

   

[BuildingScout]

It struck me as curiously coincidental that the city referenced by Canard for its attractive LRT system should also have achieved a unique reputation premised by BuildingScout for “taking down ugly buildings”.

You misinterpreted me. I never claimed that city to be unique in that respect. Most of France follows that model.

Some cursory research seemed to verify, however, that - contrary to the premise - Besançon’s “delightful urban environment…has survived more or less intact”. I so reported, as a matter of interest, and because the premise was obviously designed to be applied mutatis mutandis to Waterloo Region.
 
However, BS claimed as a fact, without citation, that the description of the city’s “old streets … lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century” was irrefutable confirmation of the original proposition, now described as “judicious demolition”.

Except that even if we assume the "early twentieth century part" to be true (which it isn't, as shown with various examples) it still doesn't support your point. Those early twentieth century buildings had to be built somewhere, i.e. where older buildings used to be.

Of course, it is not difficult to imagine other paths by which an ancient city could end up with a range of architectural legacy, but I did in fact make the further effort to find citation for BS’s claim for Besançon’s subtle demolition renown. Still, I kept coming up with citations for its conservation renown. Well, OK.

I don't think there is much point on a discussion based on a false premises: the supposed claim that Besançon is unique, while my claim is pretty much the opposite: the entirety of France is unafraid to rebuild. I even mentioned Paris, Strasbourg and Prague as examples of other cities not afraid to demolish.

So talk about building strawmen. I describe a general phenomenon in Europe of not being afraid to mix the old with the new giving examples of various cities including Besançon, Paris, Prague and Strasbourg. You instead go on a tangent about some claimed uniqueness which exists only in your imagination.

[Canard]

Oh dear. I just thought their trains were pretty.