GOD save us: greenspace-oriented development could make higher density attractive
theconversation.com/god-save-us-greenspace-or...
theconversation.comPosted Nov 17, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC
23412
theconversation.comI get what they are saying, but one of the only ways to get the required greenspace is through a large precinct scaled rezoning ...that a large developer takes on by buying the land and the development rights and puts in the required underground services. They will build tall buildings with enough parks. See: False Creek Vancouver. With incrimental 'mom and pop' scaled development - lot by lot - additional greenspace won't happen unless the state or city purchases at market value key sites, removes the houses and makes a park...on the condition that a massive upzoning takes place without NIMBY activists.
16
In their book they state that they think the suburbs already contain a reasonable land area of public green space, and propose increasing their amenity by upgrading these existing parks.
So, if I understand correctly, they are stating that the loss (in land area) of green space in backyards could be compensated by improvements (in amenity) in the public green space.
8
I have the book too. I just don't agree. Public space is damned hard to get in the first case. Unless we are talking golf courses...then,if so, let 'er rip.
2
Isn't this just towers in the park ideology dressed up with a new name?
I'm just not sure why the fuck everybody is trying to reinvent the wheel. We developed a built environment that worked pretty fucking well, the dense, lowrise, walkable, small lot, narrow street, human scaled development.
8
Agreed. I can't even make out their point of their article. It seems like some sort of scheme to allow private developers to build higher density in the suburbs in certain areas near underdeveloped parks, in exchange for upgrading the parks?
To me this is one of those "klepto-centrist" schemes where all the benefactors get to pretend like its a big "win-win-win" for society: The neighborhood gets an improved park paid for by private developers, the private developers get to build profitable housing, and overall society wins because 'we built higher density housing which should contribute against sprawl, congestion and pollution...'
The problem with these sorts of "klepto-centrist" schemes is that overall society isn't really winning out at all, or at least not nearly as much as it should be. It won't reduce housing prices or increase overall density nearly as much as viable alternative policies would. The private developers won't agree to upgrade the parks unless the city maintains restrictions on the overall local density. They don't want the entire neighborhood to densify, they want all the other lots to stay single family home only, they want exclusive rights to develop higher density housing so that high prices will be maintained. So compared to an alternative policy where the suburb simply blanket upzone the whole neighborhood, this approach wouldn't produce nearly as much social benefit. These sorts of policies are, in my opinion, corrupt bargains between the status quo vested interests to protect and advance their wealth at the expense of wider society. Sure the local homeowners are happy because they got a nicer park without having real densification, the developers are happy because the government is awarding them far guaranteed profits, and the politicians are happy because they have a fake meaningless win to crow about, but the millions of people who need cheaper housing didn't win, the environment didn't win, the economy didn't win, compared to alternative policies that would have spurred much more overall development and densification.
1
Kind of ironic how the free market is rediscovering old ideas by socialists. This stuff is exactly what city planners in socialist East Germany used to do.
https://hallespektrum.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/neustadt_luftbild-2.jpg
This is Halle-Neustadt, a planned city which at its peak had almost 100,000 residents (would like to give the density, but I find hugely varying numbers on its area). You tell me with a straight face that it doesn't have enough green spaces. Most of the residents in the shorter blocks of around five floors can barely even see the opposing block through the trees. Socialist concrete hell is and has always been a lie.
(On a side note yes, its population has shrunk by half in the last 30 years, and yes it's mostly occupied by the lower classes today, and yes, it's been torn down in parts already and there are more blocks that need renovations or tearing down, but overall it's been kept in surprisingly good condition and hasn't been abandoned entirely, and it has been planned well and with life quality and walkability in mind.)
4
Kind of ironic how the free market is rediscovering old ideas by socialists. This stuff is exactly what city planners in socialist East Germany used to do.
And in West-Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States and every other country in the world. This isn't a socialist idea, it is a modernist idea. Modernist urban planning was adopted by both sides of the iron curtain.
6
[deleted]
1
I'd make the argument that (particularly in Australia) this is gradually happening within the Planning sphere. I've personally worked on a number of projects, and witnessed a number of these large scale master plans for entire suburbs urban renewal contain the exact type of 'GOD' plans indicated in the photomontages and diagrams drawn by the author.
Typically, anywhere near higher density land uses has a much more intensified parkland surrounding it. An excellent example of this is the large public open spaces which are either currently or finished construction adjoining the new Sydney Metro. Showground Station for example, actually plans on rehabilitating an overgrown and polluted water system that flows through the centre of the suburb, and making it a dense biodiverse parkland. Council have also recently been the proponents of significantly increasing the tree canopy density in the large adjoining showground park (cant find the public exhibition page, however it was a significant endeavor). The replacement Arthur Whitling Park while currently quite bare as it grows, will be quite dense in tree canopy in 10-15 years time.
What we, and I understand to be most first world cities, need more of is filling in the 'missing middle'. As the article identifies, people are happy to own and live in semi-detached houses (townhouses). Their previous article actually indicates that when housing affordability is factored in, nearly 46% of people would be happy to live in a townhouse house. Unfortunately, we (Australia) suffer from two extremes, large amounts of high rise development around train stations and town centers, and large amounts of new urban sprawl. Financially, these two options are by far the most profitable and most reliable income generators for developers. So that's what will continue to get built. Theres no incentive for developers to make a gamble on a much lower return, when they could easily get two to four times the return on a high density development or a greenfield subdivision.
Anyone who lives in New South Wales (Australia's most populous state) will certainly be aware of the 'Low Rise Medium Density House Code'. This essentially means developers don't need to go through the lengthy approval process to knock down a detached house and replace it with townhouses or 3 storey apartment blocks; provided it meets the standards outlined in the legislation. Anywhere a detached house is permissible within Sydney will also mean townhouses and apartments can be built there. Housing affordability aside, I personally do not believe mass demolition of our suburbs is the way to address this issue.
Using the codes also significantly reduces the opportunity for local government to levy developers to provide these essential green spaces within suburbs, as they are not building to the uniqueness of a subject site, but building to tick a box instead.
Its also worth noting, what is planned to be built and what actually gets built can be two very different things (See: Opal Tower). These public open spaces look great on the Drawings, but when the landscapers finally build it in 5 years it'll probably look vastly different to what was proposed. Another great example why unchecked medium density is a terrible idea in the current construction climate.
2
Whenever I see a big developer clearcut a whole area for suburban sprawl I just think: why not just have the city buy empty plots in the city and divvy them up for mom and pop development. Platting is a lost art
1
If they had the money. The whole point of denser housing is that people DON'T have the money to take up a lot of land when land prices are high.
That's like saying, "If someone else were paying, diners at this restaurant would prefer the $30 steak over the $5 chicken fingers. So why are we serving chicken fingers again? CLEARLY we should be serving chicken fingers WITH KETCHUP (greenspace), THAT should fix the imbalance."
Yeah, in the link to that research, that finding is presented with more nuance:
There's a good passage in the Strong Towns book about this.
Exactly. The implied caveat here is "all else being equal." Without putting the question into context (e.g. "Separate dwelling with a 90 minute one-way bumper-to-bumper commute, or semi-detached with a 15 minute bike-commute to work?"