09-18-2019, 11:31 PM
(09-18-2019, 06:32 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(09-18-2019, 05:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The distance from Bramm St to King St (along Victoria St) is less than 500m. If the yards were developed, one would hope for a similar-length trail along the railway tracks to avoid having to walk to Victoria St.
And, yes, I agree that low density for the yards doesn't make sense for the long term. But given that it's next to the 1 Victoria/Garment St/Glove Box complex, it should be able to support higher density even now.
The problem I see isn't about density, it's that it's very difficult to bootstrap a vibrant pedestrian mixed use space. It shouldn't be, but that's a whole other issue about how our society builds cities. It's very difficult to convince people to walk somewhere unless there's a critical mass of destinations, and it's on the way to somewhere. Right now Garment St/Bramm St even when fully developed just aren't connected to the vibrant parts of King St. Even King/Victoria is really cutoff from the parts of King St where people walk, and the amount of pedestrian traffic there is a lot lower than just a couple blocks down King St.
A lot of good points. I would add that we need to change zoning to allow a lot more possibilities. Remember, it is illegal to build the same city form that is proven, by its high property value, to be preferred by many people: dense downtowns with many uses crammed in one next to the other. The best city forms were only permitted to be built before city planning became ubiquitous.