Slightly on topic: I stumbled upon an older Oh the Urbanity! video exploring how successful missing middle housing is in Montréal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYCAVmKzX10
The tl;dr is a point we all know: you don't necessarily need towers and skyscrapers to achieve density, you just need good zoning and a plethora of 3-6 floor buildings. The video does mention that there are of course stark differences between continental European planning (which influenced Montréal, sans the grid layout) versus North American/Anglo-Saxon planning which relies heavily on the rules of civil law - which as a result meant we ended up designing our cities around two polar opposites: low density development (namely single family homes) or towering buildings of dozens of floors. There is little room for ambiguity and diversity. And as a result...cities now going through a renaissance of development are trying to evolve whilst being stuck within these two primary confines.
But we need more. More missing middle developments. Sadly...it's election time and not only do people rarely bother to vote at municipal level elections, this time around they'll be more focused on things like economics (as a result of the pandemic as well as a recession that's slowly snowballing) and issues like homelessness as so many people are tired of the bums trashing our downtown. I can't think of any candidates that have attempted to address the issues of housing (in detail) with the exception of trusted politicians like Morrice and newcomers like Dorothy McCabe whose platform does touch on this, but doesn't really go into any details.
Either way...a huge reason why we're stuck in this rut is because of our wack zoning laws. Again, as mentioned in the video, people would be less likely to oppose mid density building projects than they would 40-50+ floor skyscrapers. It's a hard thing to change as well because these polar opposites of development - either low or very high density - have been with us for roughly a century now and that means people don't really understand the value in mid density developments, which has benefits from everything from a stronger sense of community, walkability, less tax expenses on upkeep and so on. It'd take a long, gradual and progressive cultural shift to start building cities like Montréal, Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc again.
It's definitely frustrating. Stuff like this is one reason why I really despise working in architecture in North America. We're so heavily confined within this profession. We're expected to design great cities and buildings, but the ruleset we're given makes it extremely challenging and then we as architects and planners get vilified despite our breadth of knowledge on these subjects.
Edit: Oh the Urbanity! also has a second video on the value of multiplexes in Montréal, particularly touching on the differences between the Anglo world and the rest of Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsn0ahdfQ9k
The tl;dr is a point we all know: you don't necessarily need towers and skyscrapers to achieve density, you just need good zoning and a plethora of 3-6 floor buildings. The video does mention that there are of course stark differences between continental European planning (which influenced Montréal, sans the grid layout) versus North American/Anglo-Saxon planning which relies heavily on the rules of civil law - which as a result meant we ended up designing our cities around two polar opposites: low density development (namely single family homes) or towering buildings of dozens of floors. There is little room for ambiguity and diversity. And as a result...cities now going through a renaissance of development are trying to evolve whilst being stuck within these two primary confines.
But we need more. More missing middle developments. Sadly...it's election time and not only do people rarely bother to vote at municipal level elections, this time around they'll be more focused on things like economics (as a result of the pandemic as well as a recession that's slowly snowballing) and issues like homelessness as so many people are tired of the bums trashing our downtown. I can't think of any candidates that have attempted to address the issues of housing (in detail) with the exception of trusted politicians like Morrice and newcomers like Dorothy McCabe whose platform does touch on this, but doesn't really go into any details.
Either way...a huge reason why we're stuck in this rut is because of our wack zoning laws. Again, as mentioned in the video, people would be less likely to oppose mid density building projects than they would 40-50+ floor skyscrapers. It's a hard thing to change as well because these polar opposites of development - either low or very high density - have been with us for roughly a century now and that means people don't really understand the value in mid density developments, which has benefits from everything from a stronger sense of community, walkability, less tax expenses on upkeep and so on. It'd take a long, gradual and progressive cultural shift to start building cities like Montréal, Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc again.
It's definitely frustrating. Stuff like this is one reason why I really despise working in architecture in North America. We're so heavily confined within this profession. We're expected to design great cities and buildings, but the ruleset we're given makes it extremely challenging and then we as architects and planners get vilified despite our breadth of knowledge on these subjects.
Edit: Oh the Urbanity! also has a second video on the value of multiplexes in Montréal, particularly touching on the differences between the Anglo world and the rest of Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsn0ahdfQ9k