ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[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.

[Canard]

   

   

   

   

   

[Canard]

   

   

   

   

   

[Canard]