Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Your New Brunswick neighbourhood is far less sustainable the 2nd burb. The disconnect isn’t the 1000 square foot house vs the 2400 square foot house. It’s the 7500 square foot lot versus a 3500 square foot lot of a modern burb.
The modern burbs have done a good job at increasing density to levels comparable with the non-condo tower areas of the inner city. I think you pictures ignores parks. As a person who lives in a suburban cookie cutter neighbourhood I disagree with this sentiment that there is no place for kids to play.
And there is certainly more room to play then compared to a cookie cutter condo in a concrete jungle. I find the cookie cutter and packed house complaint very weird. Condos are the ultimate in cookie cutter design and we want more density. Putting up a picture of the worst urban design in the 50s of large lots and low density as something good seems like the opposite of what is desired.
The key is making the burb style neighbourhood more walk friendly. Evergreen is a good example of putting pathways through most of the back yards creating a network of shared recreation space connecting every house.
You can’t complain about car infrastructure dominating and then claim the 1st photo is better than the 2nd photo.
|
We just moved to Panorama in the NW. There's an elementary and middle school within a few minutes walk each with large open areas for kids to play, several playgrounds in the area, and lots of pathways. When my kids are older they can bike down to the theater if they want to catch a movie or go to that big recreational center, and there's always the option of hopping on a bus if they want to go to the mall or downtown. We had access to none of that at our old condo in Chestermere, so I'm quite happy with our choice of where to live