5) In responding to Astrid, who said "Is .1 acre SFH really better than townhouse with good sound insulation and decently planned parking space?"
I replied: “No question. First 0.1 acre is a whopping 4300 sf. 40x100. Not suburban except in the minds of the planner classes.”
TOLurker expands and asks: My house sits on a lot exactly that size and it is considered a suburban lot around here. It’s not inner city Toronto, where they typically have houses on 15’ wide, 20’ lots. Even 12’ lots. 25’ is a big honking lot in the downtown core. So, if my neighbourhood densified, you could fit two houses on one lot and double my neighbourhood’s density. (which they more or less accomplished with all those stinking 30 storey condos. I would have preferred no high rises and lots of 20’ lots.)
Toronto is a bit of an exception eh? Even for Canada eh? We can try to work the margins and provide both an efficient and desireable environmentwith careful density planning. God is in the details. In the US the extent of careful density planning involves changing 16 DU/ac to 20 DU and approving the development with an exception to the city's General Plan. 10 DU/acre doesn't so like a lot. It is also 19,000 persons per square mile. That's a high school, two middle schools and 6 elementray schools. That's 120 of your 640 acres in that square mile. Roads, fire stations, shopping, commercial? Once the gross popualtion density is considered those 10 du/acre don't look so suburban anymore.
5 comments:
crisp responds to rumors
http://bakersfieldbubble.blogspot.com
Do you have an email to send the pdf report with commentary (on permit #'s)?
I think your 19,000 is high for SF units per . I assume you have 2.5 people per unit but you need to subtract linear development i.e. roads and of course public space which, you did not do. It is 20-30% of total in my estimation. Not to be nit-picky just thought your statement could use some clarity.
Post a Comment