Not sure if I totally agree - nature should be prioritized, but not necessarily to the exclusion of everything else
- especially if they pose little to no disruption to the ecosystem. We are already planning a trail through the area in any case (nevermind the whole scheme is an engineered artifice in the first place - however beneficial)
Personally I am more concerned about well-intentioned mediocrity here.
The north south ROWs on the island should be waaaaaay skinnier. Here is a picture of a 20 meter ROW in Canary.Not as a big a difference as one might think. In both examples, I'd be happy to see the on-street parking removed; in the case of
Seestadt that could be replaced with more generous trees/landscaping, while in Villiers it could allow for a narrower ROW.
Removing the parking would be appropriate
, but they could go way further.
They could have north south connections be one way, or fully pedestrianized in come cases. Also, as a community surrounded by nature and parks I feel like street trees are less essential on every single road (and I love street trees.)
I the example above, if you moved one building edge to the middle of the road, you would still have one vehicle lane and ample pedestrian space. approx 12 meters. This is one of the key mistakes that shouldn't be repeated.
To bring it all together, I agree the 20M could be narrower, exact sidewalk width is subject to capacity formula and those details aren't in front of us, but I expect there is some excess here, the parking can leave; but there are real limits on how narrow you can go. These would be offset if we actually more streets (but small) with a finer-grained grid; but we don't tend to produce designs like that.
I'm sold on street trees, but in some cases one row of trees is enough. They can provide shade for the whole right of way if it's narrow enough.Street trees aren't just about 'nature'. For me they are pretty essential aesthetic aspect of most streets, you need some 'softening' to all the hardscape.
I'm sold on street trees, but in some cases one row of trees is enough. They can provide shade for the whole right of way if it's narrow enough.
I appreciate the regulations from the city, but I think in this case they are wrong and should be ignored. The distance from Villers to Commissioners is 200 meters. Not a distance that needs a car, so it makes sense not to accomodate them in any meaningful way. Below is a development in London. Less dense, approx 6 floor buildings but the ROWs are ample. Street trees are able to provide shade and there is room for a bike lane if you got rid of the parking. This is 40% smaller than what is proposed at 13 meters. This is a 2 way street by the way.
View attachment 380110
Bottom line. I think the cities traffic planning is bad and they should have more flexibility in their road design. Especially for streets where cars are completely unnecessary. (aside from deliveries and accessibility needs. )
In broad strokes, @Northern Light ’s thinking aligns with the city approach to transportation: you need a certain volume of road space to accommodate traffic. The thing is, this is entirely backwards. When building a new neighbourhood on the edge of downtown, policy should aim to make it difficult and annoying to drive. Having limited vehicle capacity is a feature, not a bug.
The design of street networks should not react to the existing set of transportation choices but should try and alter them.
If half of Villiers was closed to private vehicles, would developers build housing? Would people choose to live there? Sure would be interesting to find out. I think the answer would be an enthusiastic yes.
I suspect they would. They could use to learn from other jurisdictions when it comes to their vehicle selection. It always seemed strange to me that other cities can fight fires that we can't. As if fire behaves differently here. Regent park is another of something decent that could have been excellent.I suspect Fire Services would veto that design., for one - there were similar discussions in the early days of the Regent Park plan.
I totally respect where you are coming from here, and it's good to think of change that is easily achievable, but I would submit that the city's rules are fundamentally flawed. They lack creativity and hate non uniformity. In this case, only cherry and commissioners need wider right of ways to accommodate big trucks. Interior streets can regulate truck size automatically by keeping retail small on those streets. I'm only really speaking of the north south streets. They have something good here, but the city is excessively rigid in their road design and it will hamper the ability for this to succeed as something great.explaining what current City policy is; and why; and then we can agree over what policies we should be able to change easily
For the first part, I think we can let the market decide who wants to live in this area. If they want a big SUV they would be free to live somewhere else. All of these other issues are dealt with in other cities without issue. Even in Toronto, some of our best places don't meet the minimum standards they want to achieve here.There is always going to be a % of the population that will use some form of vehicle - be it electric, hybrid, ICE and some mixture of Motorbike to SUV/VAN. Off-street parking and service is going to be needed in some format within the neighborhoods. And a good % of that constituency is going to want/demand access, and easy access to their 'wheels'. Beyond that little hurdle, there are the street considerations that need to be made for emergency services (A Toronto Fire Services Aerial Unit can run 32m in length), city services (Garbage, snow removal etc. etc.), public transit buses, general construction and maintenance services, and the above mentioned snow windrows. All of these are going to drive minimum requirements for planning.