Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only slightly so. And only in specific areas. Generally the ones that already had the denser, Euro-style built form.
Which is to say that the main change from the past is that we aren't taking denser, walkable Euro-style areas and turning them into auto-dependent low-density areas, like we used to do.
But we're not really building many new areas in the denser, walkable style.
This is what the Europeans often do - when they have a new part of the city to be built, they just entend the older, walkable urban form outwards.
Definitely not the case in urban BC. New development, even in the suburbs of Vancouver, is almost exclusively dense and walkable. Even most new development in Victoria is a dense, walkable, and urban. And these are not old European areas by and large, it's new development that is not an extension of something older, but that works. Of course, BC's built form and norms are very different from those in Central Canada.
Definitely not the case in urban BC. New development, even in the suburbs of Vancouver, is almost exclusively dense and walkable. Even most new development in Victoria is a dense, walkable, and urban. And these are not old European areas by and large, it's new development that is not an extension of something older, but that works. Of course, BC's built form and norms are very different from those in Central Canada.
Dense as in "tower in the park"? That's not really a good example of urbanity. But maybe you mean something else: could you link to some street views of those dense and walkable subdivisions you are talking about?
Dense as in "tower in the park"? That's not really a good example of urbanity. But maybe you mean something else: could you link to some street views of those dense and walkable subdivisions you are talking about?
Towers are the common architecture of Vancouver, but "towers in the park" are very rare, the typical towers here are point towers on podiums with shops or townhouses at grade. Here are the sort of suburban areas I am referring to, but I wouldn't refer to most as subdivisions, only the first was built on greenfield (very old view by the way, the area is now built out), most are redevelopment of previously existing areas. This doesn't contradict what I said previously because few new subdivisions are built in the suburbs due to the agricultural land reserve so this kind of infill is a huge source of new housing.
Towers are the common architecture of Vancouver, but "towers in the park" are very rare, the typical towers here are point towers on podiums with shops or townhouses at grade. Here are the sort of suburban areas I am referring to, but I wouldn't refer to most as subdivisions, only the first was built on greenfield (very old view by the way, the area is now built out), most are redevelopment of previously existing areas. This doesn't contradict what I said previously because few new subdivisions are built in the suburbs due to the agricultural land reserve so this kind of infill is a huge source of new housing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
