When you argue for housing reform to legalize denser development in our cities, you quickly learn that some people hate density. Like, really hate density, with visceral disgust and contempt for any development pattern that involves buildings being tall or close together.
What I don’t like about the Oh the Urbanity! videos is their complete lack of …class perspective. For them it’s about supply and people’s choices. There is no space for like, power relations in the urban space, and there is no understanding that density can also be a repressive power. There are places in the world (where many immigrants to Canada come from) and places in Canada where density is a signifier of poverty, bad services, lack of green space and overall bad quality of life. Without addressing this simple fact, they end up sabotaging their very valid arguments and come off as annoying smarmy neoliberals.
I’m not of course saying that poverty and density are necessarily coupled. In Canada some of the worst poverty is at some of the least dense areas (indigenous reservations ).
What I’m saying is that there is a good density and there is bad density. But good density requires a strong welfare state to put in place shared public amenities. And that’s completely missing from these videos. Instead somehow “satisfying demand” will fix things alone.
Again, it’s not as if suburban planning addresses any of the social problems. But it being the default in North America means that it already occupies a strong ideological position in the public imagination. The imaginary “benefits” of suburbanity are part of the default thinking, of the existing ideological hegemonic paradigm.
Even this phrasing is borrowed economic lingo which only further reinforces that they have a blind spot in exactly the area you’re indicating.
I think this is mostly due to historical issues in North America then anything fundamental about density (I.e. driving white people out of the cities and into the surburbs through various incentives and disincentives, then marginalising those that remain). But you’re right, those issues cast a long shadow and need to be addressed as well. And I’m all for more public housing, mixed-use development, and green space. Which should be easier to do if there are less single family dwellings taking up precious space, but does require government will.
Lol bro, no. Not at all.
You know how you can start to dislike density? Spend some time in downtown Toronto midwinter and notice that east west streets literally do not get sun at street level, all day long.
I honestly cannot fathom how so many people think runaway density and a race for everyone to live in tiny cramped shoebox apartments is a good thing.
Yes, we need to overall increase our average density to be more sustainable, that didn’t mean tearing down streetcar suburbs in Toronto and replacing them with endless walls of condos. That meant turning the in-city suburbs and actual suburbs into streetcar suburbs, but nope, race to the bottom instead.
People do not live in Downtown Toronto. It is that dense because it is the entire country’s financial district. Residential developments cannot pay the premium demanded, it is all office towers. The tiny minority of Torontonians who can afford to and choose to live there are apparently willing to put up with that.
Residential density looks more like Montreal’s walkup residential buildings.
Even if you could point out an example of density done poorly, you would have to ignore all the examples of density done well for it to be meaningful.
LMFAO, don’t look at a census my guy.
I love those buildings, but lol no, not in Toronto it doesn’t, unless you can point me to all the developers building Montreal style walkups instead of 60 story glass rectangles? Seriously, go ahead and link me to how many Montreal style walkup units are under construction right now. 1? 0? Now look out your window and you’ll count how many glass rectangles you see under construction.
Not only did I already, but it is flat out laughable that you can’t think of an example of density done badly. On top of that, no, one good example of density doesn’t mean that density is good, all I have to show is that the density being actually built here is shitty and unpleasant and that proves that the density being built here is shitty and unpleasant. It’s not complicated.
Here’s to the 4 story multiplex law 🍻, though it’s still a race to the bottom. On average if you were in the 50th percentile of income 30 years ago, you would be able to own a house with a backyard and greenspace, today, you can own a tiny condo with no outdoor access, next to a park that’s 3m square with soil about 6in deep. It is more sustainable overall, but a shittier quality of life for individuals. We of course, have the land to have both, but that would have required building more transit and real cities in the region 20 years ago instead of just continuously investing in Toronto and nowhere else.
I see you were having a bad day, my guy. Hope you’re feeling better.
Lol no it’s that we can see high density shitholes like hong Kong are basically a dystopian nightmare.
No one wants to live like that. Not even the people who actually live like that.