General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[ac3r]

Generally, it's because they're pushed by economic interests and there is often failure to properly integrate into the social fabric of the neighbourhoods - or even create one. This recent push in cities to create urban villages is often done by developers and city planners meaning so much of it is purely economically oriented. This creates very fake neighbourhoods. The intent might be good - a push for sustainability, mixed used zoning, pedestrian friendly, good transit, a variety of shops, services, entertainment - but often falls short because it's so planned and there is no authenticity and natural evolution of the area. It just ends up being more gentrification which alienates many people and that is not necessarily stable.

It takes more than some trendy, upscale restaurants to make an urban village a success. For good examples of how you can have an urban village be successful, there are places like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, Canal Street (Manchester) in England, Holzmarkt in Berlin. Christiania and Holzmarkt are particularly interesting because they started out very grassroots (Christiania was originally an anarchist commune). These areas were organically developed by those who live and work in the area, meaning they evolved to suit their needs. It wasn't some planners and developers directing things that created these vibrant areas in these cities, although they have unfortunately crept into these neighbourhoods over time.

Interesting, thanks.  Makes sense to me.

Following that logic, an urban village could have success if it were actually the people there that wanted it and pushed for it.  Most people don't want change though so the chances of a neighbourhood fighting to change themselves into something else seems pretty unlikely.

Absolutely. I recently brought up an architecture theorist called Christropher Alexander in another thread on here. He and a few colleagues wrote a book titled A Pattern Language in the 1970s. Highly recommended to read or at least research a bit. It essentially proposes a theory of architecture and planning that develops based on the needs of the people who will use it rather than permitting things to only be developed by planners and for-profit developers. The book explores ways to design everything from ideal ways to design community gardens, bedrooms, public transit, services, heights of buildings, entertainment, parking, paths, roofs etc...basically everything a person needs. To steal from Wikipedia it "[intends] to give ordinary people, not only professionals, a way to work with their neighbors to improve a town or neighborhood, design a house for themselves or work with colleagues to design an office, workshop, or public building such as a school".

Much of it was based on emerging post-modern philosophy and the politics of socialism (not socialism per se, but the idea that the social needs of a community need to be taken into consideration first and foremost...although it remains very socialist - free market neoliberals will despise this sort of planning.). I think his theory can easily continue to apply to contemporary architecture and planning. While we are living in the state of late-capitalism, we are seeing now more than ever the ways in which it fails and alienates us. If we can bring back in the needs, wants and opinions of normal, everyday people, than we can develop better homes, neighbourhoods, cities, regions etc. We place far too much responsibility in the hands of a few city planners and private developers and that has created tons of problems. To make an urban village a success, it needs to meet the needs of the people who live there but also offer things to draw more people in...but in a natural and neutral way. This means not solely relying on new condos and a few retail spaces or whatever. Such development basically creates pockets of gentrification. Rather, these areas need to suit the people who live there each single day regardless of their class. That means not just building condos and restaurants for hipster yuppies, but providing normal things for normal people that can appeal to a variety of people.

In other words, far too many urban village projects turn out to be nothing but outdoor shopping malls that a handful of people live within or use. They often fail to provide anything truly useful to mostly everyone. I wouldn't say they fail because people are against change, it's just that very often when someone proposes an idea that - let's say, builds a few condo towers and some retail space that will just be niche expensive shops few people care about - then yes, people who actually live in these areas push back. However, if a plan was presented that not only offered these normal residents something but also offered some new housing and services for new people but didn't destroy the social fabric of their neighbourhood, then they'd probably be okay with change. I think neighbourhoods usually need to develop organically to be a success. As someone who works in this field, I can think of countless projects that have just been complete failures because they had some major massive site plan that forces people to adapt to it, rather than adapt to the needs of the people. Think City Place in Toronto, or I suspect how The Metz in Kitchener will turn out: an isolated ghetto that few people care about.

Belmont has no such master plan yet, thankfully, so maybe it will develop in a good way. If the city or developers get too ambitious, then it could be far too easy to make some major mistakes that condemn the area to failure - in fact, look at the recent cancellaton of the Google Smart City in Toronto...people finally stopped and realized, oh yes it's a terrible idea to let some corporate monopoly develop a massive part of the city in this invasive way - so it was cancelled. For Blemont to do that, it definitely needs more than some expensive, trendy restaurants , dentists and various beauty businesses. I think a mixture of apartments, condos and affordable housing (it's a very working class area), services (daycares etc) and a variety of businesses and entertainment (bars with shows, art gallery/studios) could make this area become a unique area if we do it right. Places like Holzmarkt, Berlin developed this way. Normal, everyday people came together to develop their surroundings. They met and discussed what their needs and wants are and slowly developed it. They didn't rely on some major developer to buy up a chunk of land, stick some ugly towers on it and call it something. Here's an article that explores it - and I think part of the headline puts it best - bottom up development rather than top to bottom development and this is why it is now an absolute success...but they exist everywhere (Metelkova in Slovakia is another great example - used to be ugly military barracks, some anarchists moved in, claimed the buildings for the people and now it's one of the most vibrant areas in Europe). On Holzmarkt: https://www.shareable.net/holzmarkt-berl...velopment/ and https://www.shareable.net/berlins-holzma...-villages/