If there was more medium density housing where inner suburbs are now, there wouldn't be the pressure to justify building large, out-of-place, towers. We need to gradually (but consistently) loosen zoning regulations everywhere at the same time.
(5:39) I think you're right that people nearby would react negatively to a proposal to replace the three-storey buildings with something a few multiples taller. The funny thing is though that there's already a 12-storey building on Saint-Joseph just 100 metres away. As far as I can tell, having lived nearby, it wasn't a major issue that seriously bothered anyone. People default to "no" because it's the safe option but when change actually happens we're reasonably able to get used to it. It's also easier to be against a proposed housing project because the benefits seem abstract but once it's built and people are living there it's harder to wish it away.
Yeah there’s gradual up zoning that goes in around transit corridors and on arterial roads, that’s the trickle. Also Le 250 on Saint Jospeh looks late 60s/early 70s to me, which was an era where that sort of thing got built, but people 100% would complain about a 12 story high rise going up beside a triplexes these days.
@@PaigeMTL I hope there will be some up zoning close to future REM stations. Because many stations are currently in the middle of nowhere with car-oriented design
@@val4414 that's actually part of what the REM is banking on happening as the ARTM has a development tax within a certain distance of stations. I'm, a little skeptical of the structure because on the surface it seems like it would disincentivize development, but I assume there is some balancing mechanism to ensure the various municipalities pay their share. Not sure yet, it's a video that I've been researching in a kind of passive way.
But those problems about increasing density you mentioned can be fixed by 1. Orienting the buildings towards the sun light. 2. Efficient placement and orientation of public space. 3. Use different buildings materials can make up for those "problems". So instead of modern metallic coloured panelling they could use red brick of some sort.
Most neighboorhoods that have not increased housing units have actually decreased in density over the past century simply because the average household size has decreased. With few exceptions, households today have fewer children, are more often single parent, are less likely to have live-in elders, and are more likely to be single persons. Thus if the buildings have stayed the same, the number of residents has usually decreased--often quite a lot! To take just one recent example, the last census showed that Cleveland increased its number of occupied housing units while still decreasing in total population.
One niggle: the density of Paris was achieved by dictatorial fiat when Emperor Napoleon III decided to essentially bulldoze what was basically a medieval city, and hired on Haussmann as Prefect of the Seine to use quite a few tricks and blatant eminent domain land-grabs to achieve his vision of "modern Paris". I find it amusing that the city often cited by urbanists was created by methods that violate every modern concept of heritage preservation and community-based-input development.
thank you because that is VERY much (eminent domain) would happen here in America for them to get their way. The boogeyman they make the freeway folks out to be from the past would be them in modern times.
@@okaywhatevernevermind most people would argue they're fucking ugly now because they got painstakingly rebuilt post WW2. It's actually the reason why Paris is so beautiful compared to other European cities.
Also it cost so much money the city took more than a hundred years to payback its loans. People love the beauty of Paris but don't want anything with the cost associated with it.
This might come a bit late, but this is not the case at all. Pre-modern Paris was in the mind of 19th century planners a suffocatingly dense and cramped place. Lowering population density in the extremely dense core of Paris was thus one of the principal goals of the Haussman renovation, and it succeeded at that. The Ile de la Cite especially was gutted, dropping in population from about 15000 at its high point to less than a thousand today. If you want to see what Paris looked like before Haussman you can see that in parts of the Quartier Latin.
This is a recent phenomenon, however. Until the 1940s, zoning was quite liberal, and you regularly saw smaller, older buildings replaced with larger onces. However, look at post-WWII suburban sprawl, and you see those neighborhoods aren't much denser than from decades ago. Even medium-density neighborhoods have been frozen because you can't build anything denser due to the zoning. Looking at old photos of cities shows that lots of densification has taken place ... until you begin looking at photos from the 1940s and beyond, where you'll see plenty of neighborhoods that haven't densified at all.
100%, although I mean a lot of that 1940s housing not densifying from the photos was because it didn't have to. There wasn't demand for it because people were heading to the burbs for their new supply.
@@PaigeMTL But right now, there's lots of demand for denser housing closer to the city center as people understand the limitations of suburbanization. If you live far away from work, the commute can be very long (and expensive), and infrastructure for sprawling developments is more expensive. I'm sure those neighborhoods would density if the zoning allowed it (just like how much of the downtown has densified over the past century).
@@PaigeMTL That's false right after world war 2 there was an extreme demand for housing that wasn't there due to lack of construction over the depression and war years. That housing shortage is what led to governments creating new agencies for building and maintaining social housing. At the same time though, zoning was becoming more restrictive and making it harder to build in areas that already existed.
Canadians tend to be cautious about change - nearly every referendum held in Canada has failed. But if it's a choice between (1) buildings getting taller or (2) rents and home prices getting more and more insanely expensive, I suspect the majority will vote for (1). A ResearchCo poll of Vancouverites in 2019 found that only 20% would oppose six-storey buildings in their neighbourhoods.
I think if it was framed as that, but most people find a way to justify opposing supply. Blaming foreigners and investors was the last videos focus, this one is about it being “other people’s burden to bear”.
@@PaigeMTL One solution could be to market it as increasing their own house prices, because they can sell to a developer. Another could be a Referrendum where the Affordable Housing policy comes in 15 years after the Referrendum, meaning more people feel like they have time to adapt to it. Also, foreign investors, investors & immigrants do all exert an upward pressure on housing, most of all investors. Govt could build density housing & sell directly to owner-occupiers; or Community Land Trusts. And because they are selling it, it likely wouldn't cost them anything.
I think it's funny when people say "we're going to increase the density with 5 ft" (I'm 5'9" how many units are you building with 5ft?) I also think it's important to consider that with out density we will have more homeless, more traffic, more poverty. how long will "character" over take "quality of life" and isn't "character" just a code word for wealthy
My reasons for much larger density is more about climate action than personal preference. Suburbs are extremely car-centric, and we need to shift our desires to be more public transit focused. Medium and large density allows that, and even if they're less "preferred" by the masses, climate action *requires* uncomfortable solutions.
Poeples comfort and right to own and operate motor vehicles is much more important than climate action. It is up to the legislators and car manufacturers to meet emission goals and invent zero carbon solutions like E fuels and electric cars.
I think people would be more tolerant of densification if the newer buildings are designed sympathetically to the neighbourhood and built of high quality materials, designed to last, with just generally good design. Cheap boxes clad in plastic and glass with no detailing devalues an area. Look at all those buildings in Barcelona. People like them because they're actually nice to look at! Also, people get scared of densification when infrastructure isn't upgraded accordingly. People get worried about increased traffic, but if you densify along with transit improvements, then it's much easier to accept, because as an existing resident, you get something out of it.
IDK why hating on the regulations that specifically enforce minimum lot size, setback, single family occupancy/minimum parking etc is controversial. I live in a city in a county of suburbs that's basically the one almost fully walkable area and its because of buildings that don't meet the common legal requirements for that.
I think a slow trickle of incremental density increase is great if it's done continually. If regulations had never been put in place that artificially froze density for decades and such gradual increase was able to happen all along, then wonderful. But artificially blocking density though exclusionary zoning and other regulations is like putting a dam on a gentle meandering river causing a huge lake to build up and cause flooding behind it and then saying, "We have to drain this lake, but people won't tolerate the raging river that will result if we just knock the dam down. They'll only tolerate the return of the gentle meandering river" Well great, that may stop the lake from getting bigger but that'll never drain it. Just like having only a trickle of increased density will never solve the backlog of housing demand that's built up. It'll just help avoid it getting worse. Which is better than nothing but ultimately not a solution. The takeaway: If you create a major problem and let it fester for ages, solving it will not be fun or pretty. It will likely be disruptive and traumatic but will need to be done eventually so you may as well get on with it and quit complaining. :)
Absolutely perfect comment. Sure some people in medium density may not like high rises popping up, but the only reason high rises pop up is because there are single family zones squeezing the city center. It's such a shame that city councils have been shills for the home owners for so so long and it still continues.
You're so right about the need to develop dynamic densification strategies based on the neighbourhood/community. Victoria's really struggling with implementing a new missing middle zoning policy. I'm hopeful we can preserve what makes our neighborhoods great while building more density.
I wonder if it would be feasible to implement some sort of automatically-updating zoning. Something like: You have the right to construct a building up to 125% of the maximum height of existing buildings within 1/4 mile or 125% of the average height of existing buildings within 1/4 mile, whichever is less.
One is you can build one story above the minimum of the buildings directly next to it. So if there is a one story house a two story mix-use and a three-story mix-use you can build a two story building because the one story house limits you. I'm not sure this would be fast enough. And I know some still don't like it.
@@NAUM1 Yeah I'm open to that idea but I don't think it's enough of a compromise to survive the legislative process. It could be easily exploited by buying one small lot at a time and building up, repeating rapidly.
Wonderful video, just subscribed. I'd like to add a few personal opinions. That new development you show at 7:04 is just another example of this ugly global trend. Gray, composite cladding, no brick masonry, depressingly utilitarian design that seems to be copied and pasted all around the world. What makes it even worse and alienating is that these building are never human scale. I'm not talking about how many stories here. It's the horizontal size of the block, the ceiling height, the size of windows and everything in general is larger than what we humans like to see. Especially the ceiling heights of retail floors seem to be off the charts these days. They tend to be as high as two floors combined. One needs to look up to the sky to see the sign of the business. Why? What's wrong with human scale, cozy, pretty design??
Super good video, yeah, I totally agree, here in Vienna new dense neighborhoods are usually built on completely empty sites like farms or former industrial land, everything where housing already exist is only gradually and very slowly densifying, very much in the 2 to 3 times boundary you talk about, and even here there are often very controversial buildings proposed, which have higher than 3 times density in the area and locals fight it
@@PaigeMTL Oooo i look forward to it! Could maybe all the people who want higher density/decent transport/affordable cost all organize & pitch in to build that in the one area?? That would be awesome.
I live in a 2 story dingbat apartment surrounded by detached single family homes and I'd like to see more low story apartments but 5 story apartments would look weird here
I haven't seen your survey, but if you forgot to mention the walkability and proximity of services it might influence the results more. I would love to see high rises all over Mtl, provided they house local neighbourhood needs like a clinic, a bar, etc... If you have everything you need within 2 block walks, who gives a shit about 6 or 17 stories?
So what does that mean, i wonder? So you would want the entire city and suburbs to have high rises all over it? What would it look like? Extremely low to no single housing? I think of those futuristic movies where cars (haha. Cars are still there) are flying because the buildings are like 300 stories high.
The solution is pretty simple. Incremental increases in density. Set up zoning restrictions so every 10-15 years buildings can be one story taller than they were before. You can speed up that timescale around new high capacity transit lines. This can be done through adding a floor to an existing building or by replacing buildings. At the same time you put a law in place that any existing building that is larger than what zoning allows can be replaced by one of equal size if it were to collapse or be demolished, essentially creating one-lot zoning exceptions, until the rest of the street catches up through incremental up-sizing. If such a system is enshrined into law, you might even see buildings built that are designed to facilitate adding several stories to them over time as zoning laws allow, meaning that there is less pressure to demolish and rebuild at every zoning law change.
Wait I actually wanted to see what Uatee Lee had to say a 3:52 ... I've already watched his video on the missing middle but would be interested in hearing more
I feel like Paige is Canada's John Oliver - giving us the hard, often depressing truths that we really need to hear, but sprinkling in that hope that we always need. Mix that in with some entertaining gags, jokes, and swearing, and voila! The cherry on the top is Americans get the Brit accent with Oliver, and we get the Kiwi with Paige. Never change Paige. Always looking forward to the next video!
Absolutely. By the way, are you sure you're a "neoliberal"? Because neoliberals are in favor of privatization (healthcare, education, housing). I love the "CarFree", "Georgist", "YIMBY" parts, but neoliberal seems contradictory to all of those.
@@mariusfacktor3597 they aren't opposed to each other. Cities are bastions of free market capitalism and trade and they generally do best when there is less regulation and government intervention in the economy. High "dead weight loss" taxes (tariffs, income taxes, business/corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc) and red tape overregulation (Québec's loi 101 is a good example of this) hurt cities because they discourage new investment into neighbourhoods while increasing the cost of doing business. Montréal in particular has suffered from the overregulated, high cost anti business environment that the Québec government has created because no one wants to invest there anymore.
@@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102 I agree that there should be a small (if any) barrier to entry for small businesses. But neoliberals are opposed to unions, minimum wage, welfare, and this leads to income inequality and poverty. How about this for contradiction: Georgism says resources should not be monopolized but instead the revenue should be split amongst the people. While neoliberalism has no issue with monopoly and hoarding resources.
Apologies if this is not the last video in this apparent series on housing. At the end of the video when you suggest we accept that change in housing and density will not happen within our lifetimes, why? Why should I accept that I will be priced out of a home in a reasonably large city, or the city I grew up in, where all my friends and family live for another 20, 30, or 40+ years? That's not ok.
I think 4 stories should be the highest because of sick building syndrome and because I like to see the sky, plus the trees need sunshine. What we really need is for real estate developers to put in shops in the neighborhoods instead of excluding them, and make the streets for the kids (and emergency vehicles) so that people CAN drive on them to get home, but very slowly once they're off the highway or boulevard that connects the neighborhoods to public transit or other neighborhoods.
It's not only an issue of density, but of affordability. I hate the bourbon building in the village that you showed, not because it's high, but because it's exactly the kind of condo development in Montreal that is unaffordable for the majority of people living in the neighborhood. We should have a publicly owned real estate company with the mission of building public housing not only for the poor, but for the middle class. Japan is doing it, and it's working.
Japan has really liberal zoning laws that make market rate development cheaper. If you slow development to a trickle, that new development is scarce, which makes it a relatively expensive luxury. But even that luxury development is better than if there were no development. The people living in those towers would be forced to displace poorer people, who would then displace even poorer people, and so on.
Unfortunate but reasonable take; your analysis is always interesting. This video's structure would have really benefited from a single sentence at the end summarizing either a) the premise of your next video, whatever it turns out to be or b) the conclusion of your previous video, which honestly goes a long way to address one possible solution. Or both! Presenting a huge downer like this and capping it with nothing but a "but we'll talk about that later ;)" feels, well, shitty. As someone who cares about the issue, the critique is less about wanting a feel-good video and more about wanting actionable goals so I can focus on those instead of wallowing. I get that these videos are like paragraphs in a longer essay you're writing with the series, but especially week-to-week it becomes difficult to track. Admittedly, it's probably less relevant for people who've been subbed longer.
@@PaigeMTL honestly from a historical standpoint I don't seen urbanization or dense urban sprawls ever being a common thing in North America. The natural human trend is to disperse into smaller communities until the industrial revolution when urban populations began to have a larger population increase from immigration from the Rural neighborhoods. Combine this with the sheer expanse of American, Canadian, and to a lesser extent Mexican states and provinces I see no way that mega cities pop up in more than a few cities. Although I do se increased infrastructure increase as the demand for passenger railways have grown in the USA.
The grounds of 9/11 eleven have seen 3 times one of the highest buildings in New York. So have some other iconic sights like those of the singer building.
You don't need "density", you need an adaptable city wide urbanism plan that defines what area can be built, what kind of density can be build, what maximum height can a certain area be built, to limit urban sprawl and have harmonious density that respects the character of each neighborhood, while answering housing demand. That's the only way you can effectively plan for a competent public transport system, and not have wild housing development on marsh land 50km from the city brigging all the car traffic in. I guess in America, urban sprawl is less of an issue, with the amount of land available, but traffic congestion and housing shortage are serious public problems that the city should be more involved in solving, instead of letting it to the whims and fancy of private developers.
Eeeehhh... You're counting floors and calling that density. You pointed at a building and went "Yup, that's Barcelona density" without measuring the width of the street. Just like setback requirements, a street that is 100 meters long and 20 m wide has 1000 sq m less developable land than a street that is only 10 meters wide. I personally prefer creating density by building narrower streets instead of immediately building taller buildings because 1) that's less infrastructure spending per capita, 2) more friendly to pedestrians and bikes, 3) less hassle with elevators and stairs, and 4) better looking in my humble opinion. Looking at those Montreal streets reminded me of my city in the Netherlands with the exception that the streets were twice or three times the width. Really big heat sinks full of dangerous car traffic and little financial productivity.
@@PaigeMTL I personally find lot coverage less interesting than questioning the very boundaries of the lot itself. You mostly talked about building upward and briefly mentioned building inward but no mention of building outward, ignoring one of the biggest factors of all: the share of developable land per sq km. Many cities like Rochester NY, Helsinki, and Zoetermeer are creating density by downgrading stroads and urban highways on the edge of downtown to densely populated city streets that are much narrower.
Hi! As a Ukrainian watching this video, you mentioned “residents in a democracy won’t tolerate ___” - what does that mean exactly? If the government decides to do something regardless, what will it matter what they are willing to tolerate? Or is there so much actual democracy that they can change stuff?
@@PaigeMTL you're lucky man. In my neighborhood the construction of a subway line got delayed because, as it turns out, instead of using the money to build the subway line the contractor just but the money on a bank deposit...
This would be sacrilegious to me. But. Maybe it’s time to make a video on the benefits of greenfield development over infill. Sure the campaign for infill/densification should continue, but …. As is maybe it’s time to really push on greenfield dense construction (like your building on the edge of Canadian green belts thing) because it’s probably not a good idea to wait another 2 generations for infill to potentially catch up? Or maybe it never will considering affordable housing is an aberration of 1920-90 at least for me in the UK and USA as far as I’m aware. Maybe that’s why housing always was expensive. Infill is hard. And until you unlock a huge amount of new land with either electric tram/train(20s first social housing) or cars(post war) you’re intrinsically locked in and can never build enough to keep up?
Do you think the low-hanging fruit of fourplex vs single detached fits in this paradox? It's going to be about the same height and site coverage... but still has the "poors moving in" problem.
@@PaigeMTL good answer. Personally I hope we can get more broad-based up zoning where I live (Kelowna has the 4th worst housing market in Canada yayyy) but mitigating community pushback will be crucial
Well that’s one solution which I covered last week. The first major province or state that does that will have a huge economic and population windfall.
I know one of the most dividing factors in my community when it comes to density is gentrification. I live a Ottawa Community Housing village. It was part of a line of projects stated by the Ontario Community Housing corporation (the name might be wrong it hard to find the routes of this project) where large plots of land were allocated for subsidized housing. This allowed many low income families and immigrants (like my parents) to get a house to live in. The rent depends on your income. The prices for rent are affordable for a majority of the residents. Unfortunately my community has a bad stigma of being a crime ridden area. It has the more shootings and gang related crimes than any other part of Ottawa combined (Lowertown East) and that stigma has affected any new OCH project. Now the reason why residents reported worried about gentrification is that if new condos were to be built than the price of rent would go up and already that seems to be the case. Many new condos have been built, replacing a community centre, a homeless shelter and many medium/low rent apartments. The condos are too expensive for low income families and with a large need for low income housing their is concern that if we lose our house here than their wouldn’t be a new low rent option for us.
Great video! But to be that guy, the clip of "Boston" you used is actually Brookline Village in Brookline, Mass, an inner-ring suburb ;p Point still stands though.
On the subject of Rome 5 story insulae/ancient mixed use apartments were actually the most common kind of housing in imperial Rome. There's evidence that 9 story insulae existed but it isn't convincing.
Ancient Rome had a million residents and competent engineers, but time compresses, it was already hundreds of years older than LA or Toronto by that point right?
Lol, it’s very much not. Housing is actually quite a lot cheaper here than in many other developed countries and redevelopment is a lot easier on a 60s ranch style house than a 300 year old townhouse or cottage.
@@PaigeMTL , I’m being partly facetious and serious. it is hopeless in terms of walkability. It you add the cost of a car for each adult, then North American living is quite expensive. I have saved enough money that I am moving to Asia next year. You guys can have American style housing and the isolation and mental illness that goes with it. btw, I own property in Southern California and Las Vegas so I am personally set. However, I see how people struggle with work and housing. If we believe that our society is the best and always produces superior outcomes, then we deserve what we get.
It’s not, I’ve never owned a car, I don’t even have a license, and easily the most I ever spent in cars was when living in Asia. You just have to live in a walkable city. Where did you get the idea to write off an entire continent based on transportation choices and then bail?
I somewhat agree to be honest, but I think its more of a mixed bag where some cities are completely redeemable while others should just be allowed to be as car centric as they want as the hope is truly lost. Cities like DC could easily densify and create an even better urban environment because the city was expertly designed, is pretty dense already, and resisted car culture. Cities like LA and Phoenix should be allowed to rot and continue to widen their freeways if they want because no amount of redevelopment will ever make them real cities again, and I think these priorities are important to outline because the US government is pouring billions of transit dollars into light rails to no where in cities like Dallas when they could be putting that money towards cities that still have a shot (and are largely intact) like Boston, NYC, DC, San Francisco, etc.
We should make zoning codes to accommodate people's preferences/tolerances for additional zoning. Something like "the tallest building that can be built on x block is a building 1 story or x% (whichever is greater) Taller than the tallest existing building on that block." That way we ensure densificación must be gradual and people can feel secure in their level of density over short enough timespans and have time to adjust to necessary density changes.
Pour un vlog qui parle de Montréal, se serait la moindre des choses de mettre des sous-titres en français. Pas tous les Montréalais sont à l'aise en anglais!
Thank you for an actually reasonable take. As somebody who likes the wide, open and green suburbs, I chose to deal with a long ass commute to get away from the density of downtown. There isn't a one size fits all for ALL neighborhoods as much as Redditors on /r/montreal would like to make us believe. This is TH-cam your downvote has no power here Redditors!!! I'll speak my mind lmao
A bit more density benefits everyone, even suburbanites will have shorter commutes because the suburbs will be smaller and thus more people can be closer to downtown without being there
I somewhat agree as long as people are willing to let cities be cities and suburbs be suburbs. The issue that we run into though is suburban commuters who get cities plowed over with highways and only treat those cities as a place to commute to rather than peoples homes. Car can be king in the suburbs if that's what people desire, but the resistance to taking transit into the city rather than driving and not respecting the lives of urbanites is a serious problem in American cities. We build these giant urban freeway projects to accommodate commuters in cities and its gross. I feel like we should take the Paris approach that commuters shouldn't be considered in decision making and that anyone who enters Paris needs to respect the city and abandon their cars at the doorstep.
I don’t really think invading suburbanites with 5 over 1s is the best idea, but I do think that we could redevelop some strip malls here and there. You wouldn’t be personally offending your local activists who washes their hands when they see a poor person in their 15 meter radius.
That’s what’s been happening, and it’s not bringing in enough supply. Also what happens is those occasional spots end up having to be very dense because it’s the only place in the whole area. Then people complain about condos.
@@justsamoo3480 well this series is going to wrap up with a few videos that are very solution focused, these earlier videos are focused on the "Admitting we have a problem" stage. I'm stoked you're asking this question, because that's the open mind necessary to solve this and you have raised one solution. What would it take for a new neighbourhood to get your approval?
Please don't perpetuate the myth that American cities are bad because they were built after the car was invented. While many suburbs were (although the design was more motivated by racism, and enabled by the car), north american downtowns were, by and large, built prior to this and demolished to make way for car centric development.
They are bad for walking because the population exploded during the age of the automobile and the continent provided seemingly endless cheap space that citizens could drive to. Europeans just had different inputs, unless of course you’re saying there’s something superior about Europeans?
@@PaigeMTL That's only really adjacent to my point. You can find old photos of pretty much any American city pre WWII which show something that urbanists today dream of, but if you look at the same shots now you'll probably just see a car park. The cities existed before the car, and were good before the car, and they were demolished for the car (and sometimes racism). Much of Europe was demolished during the war (often by other Europeans), which gave a great opportunity to rebuild for the car, and many cities embraced that. The difference is that much of Europe (but not all) realised this was a mistake decades ago while much of North America (but not all) has continued to embrace car dependence. I don't think there's anything inherently superior about Europeans, I just prefer the (generally) European approach to this issue.
You want me to form my opinions by looking at a photo of say Montrose when the metro had a population of 500k and then look at the place today and go, man these people are so dumb! They should be like a European city that had to deal with 0.3% population growth during the age of the automobile? I can't believe that this (now) 6.5 million person sunbelt oil processing metropolis is finding it way harder than some European museum exhibit of a city to course correct for urban planning mistakes. I like European urbanism too, that's why I live in Montreal, but I don't go dumping on Toronto and thinking they're dumb for just being a product of trends and forces. It's been hard enough correcting the mistakes made during the auto-centric doubling of Montreal's population, Toronto grew 6 times over in the same time period. So I just give them a thumbs up when they go the right direction, and believe that with time they'll get it right, they're smart people and lots of people are working on it there. They just have way more work to do and I'm lucky to inherit the upside of a fairly flat population in a historic city.
@@PaigeMTL North American cities were built for the car is a myth (or I'll concede as far as it being an oversimplification to the point of being misleading). Those cities existed before the car andthey could've kept going without car dependence, but instead they built racially motivated car dependent suburbs around the existing cities while demolishing the existing (at that point mostly minority occupied) urban neighbourhoods to make way for highways and car parks. You don't really need to bring Europe into the argument at all, it would've been great if North America kept what it had and built upon it, as happened in New York and Montreal for example. There are more examples of this in Europe which is why you might look there for that style but it's not exclusively European. Japan's population also exploded post WWII and they also didn't fall into the trap of car dependance. My second comment referred to Ecogecko's video which does have a heavy focus on Europe, because that's where the style of development he talks about has mostly happened, and I think that sort of thing would work well (among a wider range of "missing middle" housing) in North America. I am not aware of anything in that style that currently exists there, but I believe there is one being planned or built in Arizona at the moment. I don't know why you're getting so stuck up about Europeans supposedly telling you what's right for NA. That's not the point I'm trying to make (although I might've said a bit in that direction since the first comment). I'm not even trying to argue (with my original comment) that the path NA has gone down is a bad one (although I do think that), it's purely that saying American cities were built post car is wrong, and its something that those weird pro car dependence people like to say as an excuse for why car dependence is inevitable in NA.
I've given this video a thrmbs down 👎 because it doesn't understand what a "superblock" is! Superblocks are not about block flats and dense population! They're about pedestrianising the streets between blocks in cities to reduce traffic and have safer neighbourhoods! What you're talking about is the stuff of nightmares! Get it right next time! 😢
the video seems pointless and the main conclusions seems to be that people are resistant to change and we shouldnt copy other cities urban planning. people are resistant to change on anything, thats obvious. thats to be disregarded when looking for optimum solutions because people are always going to fight it, until they actually have it and realize its better. people are stupid. on the second point, that doesnt make sense either because there are good cities and bad cities and beautiful ones and ugly ones, objectively. we need to make _all_ cities have the traits of the good ones and beautiful ones. how that would be achieved is beside the point. it doesnt matter. people are going to resist and be against it no matter how you do it and people are dumb and also have no idea whats good for them and know nothing about proper city building and architecture. the only thing thats needed to be gathered from the public is what they like and what is psychologically good for them and what benefits their lives.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
If there was more medium density housing where inner suburbs are now, there wouldn't be the pressure to justify building large, out-of-place, towers. We need to gradually (but consistently) loosen zoning regulations everywhere at the same time.
(5:39) I think you're right that people nearby would react negatively to a proposal to replace the three-storey buildings with something a few multiples taller. The funny thing is though that there's already a 12-storey building on Saint-Joseph just 100 metres away. As far as I can tell, having lived nearby, it wasn't a major issue that seriously bothered anyone. People default to "no" because it's the safe option but when change actually happens we're reasonably able to get used to it. It's also easier to be against a proposed housing project because the benefits seem abstract but once it's built and people are living there it's harder to wish it away.
Yeah there’s gradual up zoning that goes in around transit corridors and on arterial roads, that’s the trickle. Also Le 250 on Saint Jospeh looks late 60s/early 70s to me, which was an era where that sort of thing got built, but people 100% would complain about a 12 story high rise going up beside a triplexes these days.
@@PaigeMTL I hope there will be some up zoning close to future REM stations. Because many stations are currently in the middle of nowhere with car-oriented design
@@val4414 that's actually part of what the REM is banking on happening as the ARTM has a development tax within a certain distance of stations. I'm, a little skeptical of the structure because on the surface it seems like it would disincentivize development, but I assume there is some balancing mechanism to ensure the various municipalities pay their share. Not sure yet, it's a video that I've been researching in a kind of passive way.
But those problems about increasing density you mentioned can be fixed by
1. Orienting the buildings towards the sun light.
2. Efficient placement and orientation of public space.
3. Use different buildings materials can make up for those "problems". So instead of modern metallic coloured panelling they could use red brick of some sort.
Most neighboorhoods that have not increased housing units have actually decreased in density over the past century simply because the average household size has decreased. With few exceptions, households today have fewer children, are more often single parent, are less likely to have live-in elders, and are more likely to be single persons. Thus if the buildings have stayed the same, the number of residents has usually decreased--often quite a lot! To take just one recent example, the last census showed that Cleveland increased its number of occupied housing units while still decreasing in total population.
One niggle: the density of Paris was achieved by dictatorial fiat when Emperor Napoleon III decided to essentially bulldoze what was basically a medieval city, and hired on Haussmann as Prefect of the Seine to use quite a few tricks and blatant eminent domain land-grabs to achieve his vision of "modern Paris". I find it amusing that the city often cited by urbanists was created by methods that violate every modern concept of heritage preservation and community-based-input development.
thank you because that is VERY much (eminent domain) would happen here in America for them to get their way.
The boogeyman they make the freeway folks out to be from the past would be them in modern times.
Also a lot of people seem to forget most european cities look great now because they were bombed to shit and painstakingly rebuilt post WW2.
@@okaywhatevernevermind most people would argue they're fucking ugly now because they got painstakingly rebuilt post WW2. It's actually the reason why Paris is so beautiful compared to other European cities.
Also it cost so much money the city took more than a hundred years to payback its loans. People love the beauty of Paris but don't want anything with the cost associated with it.
This might come a bit late, but this is not the case at all.
Pre-modern Paris was in the mind of 19th century planners a suffocatingly dense and cramped place. Lowering population density in the extremely dense core of Paris was thus one of the principal goals of the Haussman renovation, and it succeeded at that. The Ile de la Cite especially was gutted, dropping in population from about 15000 at its high point to less than a thousand today.
If you want to see what Paris looked like before Haussman you can see that in parts of the Quartier Latin.
This is a recent phenomenon, however. Until the 1940s, zoning was quite liberal, and you regularly saw smaller, older buildings replaced with larger onces. However, look at post-WWII suburban sprawl, and you see those neighborhoods aren't much denser than from decades ago. Even medium-density neighborhoods have been frozen because you can't build anything denser due to the zoning. Looking at old photos of cities shows that lots of densification has taken place ... until you begin looking at photos from the 1940s and beyond, where you'll see plenty of neighborhoods that haven't densified at all.
100%, although I mean a lot of that 1940s housing not densifying from the photos was because it didn't have to. There wasn't demand for it because people were heading to the burbs for their new supply.
@@PaigeMTL But right now, there's lots of demand for denser housing closer to the city center as people understand the limitations of suburbanization. If you live far away from work, the commute can be very long (and expensive), and infrastructure for sprawling developments is more expensive. I'm sure those neighborhoods would density if the zoning allowed it (just like how much of the downtown has densified over the past century).
@@PaigeMTL That's false right after world war 2 there was an extreme demand for housing that wasn't there due to lack of construction over the depression and war years. That housing shortage is what led to governments creating new agencies for building and maintaining social housing. At the same time though, zoning was becoming more restrictive and making it harder to build in areas that already existed.
Canadians tend to be cautious about change - nearly every referendum held in Canada has failed. But if it's a choice between (1) buildings getting taller or (2) rents and home prices getting more and more insanely expensive, I suspect the majority will vote for (1). A ResearchCo poll of Vancouverites in 2019 found that only 20% would oppose six-storey buildings in their neighbourhoods.
I think if it was framed as that, but most people find a way to justify opposing supply. Blaming foreigners and investors was the last videos focus, this one is about it being “other people’s burden to bear”.
@@PaigeMTL One solution could be to market it as increasing their own house prices, because they can sell to a developer. Another could be a Referrendum where the Affordable Housing policy comes in 15 years after the Referrendum, meaning more people feel like they have time to adapt to it.
Also, foreign investors, investors & immigrants do all exert an upward pressure on housing, most of all investors.
Govt could build density housing & sell directly to owner-occupiers; or Community Land Trusts. And because they are selling it, it likely wouldn't cost them anything.
I did that survey! Lol. I live in a 10 storey building and it's the only one on this street. All of the other ones are single family and duplexes.
Thanks for the data!
8:58 Oh hey, that's my home town!
Zak Jardak song should be viral. Great episode Paige 🔥
Thé production value of these videos is truly 😙👌
I think it's funny when people say "we're going to increase the density with 5 ft" (I'm 5'9" how many units are you building with 5ft?) I also think it's important to consider that with out density we will have more homeless, more traffic, more poverty. how long will "character" over take "quality of life" and isn't "character" just a code word for wealthy
My reasons for much larger density is more about climate action than personal preference. Suburbs are extremely car-centric, and we need to shift our desires to be more public transit focused. Medium and large density allows that, and even if they're less "preferred" by the masses, climate action *requires* uncomfortable solutions.
Poeples comfort and right to own and operate motor vehicles is much more important than climate action. It is up to the legislators and car manufacturers to meet emission goals and invent zero carbon solutions like E fuels and electric cars.
I think people would be more tolerant of densification if the newer buildings are designed sympathetically to the neighbourhood and built of high quality materials, designed to last, with just generally good design. Cheap boxes clad in plastic and glass with no detailing devalues an area. Look at all those buildings in Barcelona. People like them because they're actually nice to look at! Also, people get scared of densification when infrastructure isn't upgraded accordingly. People get worried about increased traffic, but if you densify along with transit improvements, then it's much easier to accept, because as an existing resident, you get something out of it.
Funny, this is the video I’m editing now.
As someone who lives in the suburbs, I severely support significantly taller buildings. There is no height I would oppose.
Super contenu! en plus ça vien de chez nous! keep it up!!
IDK why hating on the regulations that specifically enforce minimum lot size, setback, single family occupancy/minimum parking etc is controversial. I live in a city in a county of suburbs that's basically the one almost fully walkable area and its because of buildings that don't meet the common legal requirements for that.
I think a slow trickle of incremental density increase is great if it's done continually. If regulations had never been put in place that artificially froze density for decades and such gradual increase was able to happen all along, then wonderful. But artificially blocking density though exclusionary zoning and other regulations is like putting a dam on a gentle meandering river causing a huge lake to build up and cause flooding behind it and then saying, "We have to drain this lake, but people won't tolerate the raging river that will result if we just knock the dam down. They'll only tolerate the return of the gentle meandering river" Well great, that may stop the lake from getting bigger but that'll never drain it. Just like having only a trickle of increased density will never solve the backlog of housing demand that's built up. It'll just help avoid it getting worse. Which is better than nothing but ultimately not a solution.
The takeaway: If you create a major problem and let it fester for ages, solving it will not be fun or pretty. It will likely be disruptive and traumatic but will need to be done eventually so you may as well get on with it and quit complaining. :)
Absolutely perfect comment. Sure some people in medium density may not like high rises popping up, but the only reason high rises pop up is because there are single family zones squeezing the city center. It's such a shame that city councils have been shills for the home owners for so so long and it still continues.
Man, I wish I had gotten on that survey. Was there a no restriction option?
You're so right about the need to develop dynamic densification strategies based on the neighbourhood/community. Victoria's really struggling with implementing a new missing middle zoning policy. I'm hopeful we can preserve what makes our neighborhoods great while building more density.
This might be your best video yet, good job
That’s good to know
I wonder if it would be feasible to implement some sort of automatically-updating zoning. Something like: You have the right to construct a building up to 125% of the maximum height of existing buildings within 1/4 mile or 125% of the average height of existing buildings within 1/4 mile, whichever is less.
One is you can build one story above the minimum of the buildings directly next to it. So if there is a one story house a two story mix-use and a three-story mix-use you can build a two story building because the one story house limits you. I'm not sure this would be fast enough. And I know some still don't like it.
@@NAUM1 Yeah I'm open to that idea but I don't think it's enough of a compromise to survive the legislative process. It could be easily exploited by buying one small lot at a time and building up, repeating rapidly.
Wonderful video, just subscribed.
I'd like to add a few personal opinions. That new development you show at 7:04 is just another example of this ugly global trend. Gray, composite cladding, no brick masonry, depressingly utilitarian design that seems to be copied and pasted all around the world. What makes it even worse and alienating is that these building are never human scale. I'm not talking about how many stories here. It's the horizontal size of the block, the ceiling height, the size of windows and everything in general is larger than what we humans like to see. Especially the ceiling heights of retail floors seem to be off the charts these days. They tend to be as high as two floors combined. One needs to look up to the sky to see the sign of the business. Why? What's wrong with human scale, cozy, pretty design??
Very good video! Love that not everything is black or white and you bring different point of view that brings reflection.
Welcome to the tormented endless debate that goes on in my head
Super good video, yeah, I totally agree, here in Vienna new dense neighborhoods are usually built on completely empty sites like farms or former industrial land, everything where housing already exist is only gradually and very slowly densifying, very much in the 2 to 3 times boundary you talk about, and even here there are often very controversial buildings proposed, which have higher than 3 times density in the area and locals fight it
That’s right, and it’s probably a good sign that you’re bringing up case studies for future videos
@@PaigeMTL Oooo i look forward to it! Could maybe all the people who want higher density/decent transport/affordable cost all organize & pitch in to build that in the one area?? That would be awesome.
Great video, thanks! Still, I think increasing density ought to have been done , at least, two or three decades ago. Yes, gradually but steadily 😅
I live in a 2 story dingbat apartment surrounded by detached single family homes and I'd like to see more low story apartments but 5 story apartments would look weird here
Awesome video! Can’t wait for more :)
I haven't seen your survey, but if you forgot to mention the walkability and proximity of services it might influence the results more. I would love to see high rises all over Mtl, provided they house local neighbourhood needs like a clinic, a bar, etc...
If you have everything you need within 2 block walks, who gives a shit about 6 or 17 stories?
So what does that mean, i wonder?
So you would want the entire city and suburbs to have high rises all over it? What would it look like? Extremely low to no single housing?
I think of those futuristic movies where cars (haha. Cars are still there) are flying because the buildings are like 300 stories high.
The solution is pretty simple. Incremental increases in density. Set up zoning restrictions so every 10-15 years buildings can be one story taller than they were before. You can speed up that timescale around new high capacity transit lines. This can be done through adding a floor to an existing building or by replacing buildings. At the same time you put a law in place that any existing building that is larger than what zoning allows can be replaced by one of equal size if it were to collapse or be demolished, essentially creating one-lot zoning exceptions, until the rest of the street catches up through incremental up-sizing.
If such a system is enshrined into law, you might even see buildings built that are designed to facilitate adding several stories to them over time as zoning laws allow, meaning that there is less pressure to demolish and rebuild at every zoning law change.
Wait I actually wanted to see what Uatee Lee had to say a 3:52 ... I've already watched his video on the missing middle but would be interested in hearing more
Checkout Canadian Civil, he’s on pretty often
I think a good way to go abut this is to ad one story everytime a houese needs to be replacing.
I feel like Paige is Canada's John Oliver - giving us the hard, often depressing truths that we really need to hear, but sprinkling in that hope that we always need. Mix that in with some entertaining gags, jokes, and swearing, and voila! The cherry on the top is Americans get the Brit accent with Oliver, and we get the Kiwi with Paige.
Never change Paige. Always looking forward to the next video!
I wish we could go back to the fine grained incremental urbanism that we used to build.
Absolutely.
By the way, are you sure you're a "neoliberal"? Because neoliberals are in favor of privatization (healthcare, education, housing). I love the "CarFree", "Georgist", "YIMBY" parts, but neoliberal seems contradictory to all of those.
@@mariusfacktor3597 they aren't opposed to each other. Cities are bastions of free market capitalism and trade and they generally do best when there is less regulation and government intervention in the economy. High "dead weight loss" taxes (tariffs, income taxes, business/corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc) and red tape overregulation (Québec's loi 101 is a good example of this) hurt cities because they discourage new investment into neighbourhoods while increasing the cost of doing business. Montréal in particular has suffered from the overregulated, high cost anti business environment that the Québec government has created because no one wants to invest there anymore.
@@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102 I agree that there should be a small (if any) barrier to entry for small businesses. But neoliberals are opposed to unions, minimum wage, welfare, and this leads to income inequality and poverty.
How about this for contradiction: Georgism says resources should not be monopolized but instead the revenue should be split amongst the people. While neoliberalism has no issue with monopoly and hoarding resources.
Apologies if this is not the last video in this apparent series on housing. At the end of the video when you suggest we accept that change in housing and density will not happen within our lifetimes, why? Why should I accept that I will be priced out of a home in a reasonably large city, or the city I grew up in, where all my friends and family live for another 20, 30, or 40+ years? That's not ok.
There are 8 videos in the series
Alright, I look forward to those other videos then
I think 4 stories should be the highest because of sick building syndrome and because I like to see the sky, plus the trees need sunshine. What we really need is for real estate developers to put in shops in the neighborhoods instead of excluding them, and make the streets for the kids (and emergency vehicles) so that people CAN drive on them to get home, but very slowly once they're off the highway or boulevard that connects the neighborhoods to public transit or other neighborhoods.
It's not only an issue of density, but of affordability. I hate the bourbon building in the village that you showed, not because it's high, but because it's exactly the kind of condo development in Montreal that is unaffordable for the majority of people living in the neighborhood.
We should have a publicly owned real estate company with the mission of building public housing not only for the poor, but for the middle class. Japan is doing it, and it's working.
Did you watch last weeks video?
Japan has really liberal zoning laws that make market rate development cheaper.
If you slow development to a trickle, that new development is scarce, which makes it a relatively expensive luxury.
But even that luxury development is better than if there were no development. The people living in those towers would be forced to displace poorer people, who would then displace even poorer people, and so on.
Unfortunate but reasonable take; your analysis is always interesting. This video's structure would have really benefited from a single sentence at the end summarizing either a) the premise of your next video, whatever it turns out to be or b) the conclusion of your previous video, which honestly goes a long way to address one possible solution. Or both! Presenting a huge downer like this and capping it with nothing but a "but we'll talk about that later ;)" feels, well, shitty. As someone who cares about the issue, the critique is less about wanting a feel-good video and more about wanting actionable goals so I can focus on those instead of wallowing. I get that these videos are like paragraphs in a longer essay you're writing with the series, but especially week-to-week it becomes difficult to track. Admittedly, it's probably less relevant for people who've been subbed longer.
I want these to be modular, and some are not feel good because the solutions require 30 minutes of explaining how we got in this mess
@@PaigeMTL honestly from a historical standpoint I don't seen urbanization or dense urban sprawls ever being a common thing in North America. The natural human trend is to disperse into smaller communities until the industrial revolution when urban populations began to have a larger population increase from immigration from the Rural neighborhoods. Combine this with the sheer expanse of American, Canadian, and to a lesser extent Mexican states and provinces I see no way that mega cities pop up in more than a few cities. Although I do se increased infrastructure increase as the demand for passenger railways have grown in the USA.
from what i got from this is: people shouldn't have say in what get built in their neighborhood because people will always be resistant to change.
Man it's painful, wish there was an easy solution.
Just discovered u.
You should really have more subs.
That’s where you come in Marcus
The grounds of 9/11 eleven have seen 3 times one of the highest buildings in New York. So have some other iconic sights like those of the singer building.
You don't need "density", you need an adaptable city wide urbanism plan that defines what area can be built, what kind of density can be build, what maximum height can a certain area be built, to limit urban sprawl and have harmonious density that respects the character of each neighborhood, while answering housing demand. That's the only way you can effectively plan for a competent public transport system, and not have wild housing development on marsh land 50km from the city brigging all the car traffic in. I guess in America, urban sprawl is less of an issue, with the amount of land available, but traffic congestion and housing shortage are serious public problems that the city should be more involved in solving, instead of letting it to the whims and fancy of private developers.
Eeeehhh...
You're counting floors and calling that density. You pointed at a building and went "Yup, that's Barcelona density" without measuring the width of the street. Just like setback requirements, a street that is 100 meters long and 20 m wide has 1000 sq m less developable land than a street that is only 10 meters wide. I personally prefer creating density by building narrower streets instead of immediately building taller buildings because 1) that's less infrastructure spending per capita, 2) more friendly to pedestrians and bikes, 3) less hassle with elevators and stairs, and 4) better looking in my humble opinion. Looking at those Montreal streets reminded me of my city in the Netherlands with the exception that the streets were twice or three times the width. Really big heat sinks full of dangerous car traffic and little financial productivity.
I also talked about lot coverage (burnt down building) and have spent a lot of time looking at population density data
@@PaigeMTL I personally find lot coverage less interesting than questioning the very boundaries of the lot itself. You mostly talked about building upward and briefly mentioned building inward but no mention of building outward, ignoring one of the biggest factors of all: the share of developable land per sq km. Many cities like Rochester NY, Helsinki, and Zoetermeer are creating density by downgrading stroads and urban highways on the edge of downtown to densely populated city streets that are much narrower.
So basically keep demanding the suburbs densify? OK well, have fun!
Hi! As a Ukrainian watching this video, you mentioned “residents in a democracy won’t tolerate ___” - what does that mean exactly? If the government decides to do something regardless, what will it matter what they are willing to tolerate? Or is there so much actual democracy that they can change stuff?
In established democracies with local representatives people vote politicians out of office for things as minor as removing parking spots.
@@PaigeMTL you're lucky man. In my neighborhood the construction of a subway line got delayed because, as it turns out, instead of using the money to build the subway line the contractor just but the money on a bank deposit...
This would be sacrilegious to me. But. Maybe it’s time to make a video on the benefits of greenfield development over infill.
Sure the campaign for infill/densification should continue, but …. As is maybe it’s time to really push on greenfield dense construction (like your building on the edge of Canadian green belts thing) because it’s probably not a good idea to wait another 2 generations for infill to potentially catch up? Or maybe it never will considering affordable housing is an aberration of 1920-90 at least for me in the UK and USA as far as I’m aware. Maybe that’s why housing always was expensive. Infill is hard. And until you unlock a huge amount of new land with either electric tram/train(20s first social housing) or cars(post war) you’re intrinsically locked in and can never build enough to keep up?
No comments in the last year? Lemme fix that.
9 stories not allways equals 9 stories.
Barcelona, Paris and Berlin too often have buildings that tall but the they set back and are narrow.
That’s true, but the average is definitely quite a lot denser than the plateau
Just here trying to figure out what the hashtagged numbers mean...
Do you think the low-hanging fruit of fourplex vs single detached fits in this paradox? It's going to be about the same height and site coverage... but still has the "poors moving in" problem.
Ever heard of drive to your quality? There are plenty of areas of detached single family that are already low income.
@@PaigeMTL good answer. Personally I hope we can get more broad-based up zoning where I live (Kelowna has the 4th worst housing market in Canada yayyy) but mitigating community pushback will be crucial
Well that’s one solution which I covered last week. The first major province or state that does that will have a huge economic and population windfall.
I know one of the most dividing factors in my community when it comes to density is gentrification. I live a Ottawa Community Housing village. It was part of a line of projects stated by the Ontario Community Housing corporation (the name might be wrong it hard to find the routes of this project) where large plots of land were allocated for subsidized housing. This allowed many low income families and immigrants (like my parents) to get a house to live in. The rent depends on your income. The prices for rent are affordable for a majority of the residents. Unfortunately my community has a bad stigma of being a crime ridden area. It has the more shootings and gang related crimes than any other part of Ottawa combined (Lowertown East) and that stigma has affected any new OCH project. Now the reason why residents reported worried about gentrification is that if new condos were to be built than the price of rent would go up and already that seems to be the case. Many new condos have been built, replacing a community centre, a homeless shelter and many medium/low rent apartments. The condos are too expensive for low income families and with a large need for low income housing their is concern that if we lose our house here than their wouldn’t be a new low rent option for us.
Still we have the douplex and triplex option too.
Great video! But to be that guy, the clip of "Boston" you used is actually Brookline Village in Brookline, Mass, an inner-ring suburb ;p Point still stands though.
On the subject of Rome 5 story insulae/ancient mixed use apartments were actually the most common kind of housing in imperial Rome. There's evidence that 9 story insulae existed but it isn't convincing.
Ancient Rome had a million residents and competent engineers, but time compresses, it was already hundreds of years older than LA or Toronto by that point right?
@@PaigeMTL yeah you're right, i just wanted to mention that cause you brought up Rome.
It’s hopeless for North America.
Lol, it’s very much not. Housing is actually quite a lot cheaper here than in many other developed countries and redevelopment is a lot easier on a 60s ranch style house than a 300 year old townhouse or cottage.
@@PaigeMTL , I’m being partly facetious and serious. it is hopeless in terms of walkability. It you add the cost of a car for each adult, then North American living is quite expensive. I have saved enough money that I am moving to Asia next year. You guys can have American style housing and the isolation and mental illness that goes with it. btw, I own property in Southern California and Las Vegas so I am personally set. However, I see how people struggle with work and housing. If we believe that our society is the best and always produces superior outcomes, then we deserve what we get.
It’s not, I’ve never owned a car, I don’t even have a license, and easily the most I ever spent in cars was when living in Asia. You just have to live in a walkable city. Where did you get the idea to write off an entire continent based on transportation choices and then bail?
I somewhat agree to be honest, but I think its more of a mixed bag where some cities are completely redeemable while others should just be allowed to be as car centric as they want as the hope is truly lost. Cities like DC could easily densify and create an even better urban environment because the city was expertly designed, is pretty dense already, and resisted car culture. Cities like LA and Phoenix should be allowed to rot and continue to widen their freeways if they want because no amount of redevelopment will ever make them real cities again, and I think these priorities are important to outline because the US government is pouring billions of transit dollars into light rails to no where in cities like Dallas when they could be putting that money towards cities that still have a shot (and are largely intact) like Boston, NYC, DC, San Francisco, etc.
@@benw3864
You sound very stupid.
two-fold illusion 🥚
We should make zoning codes to accommodate people's preferences/tolerances for additional zoning. Something like "the tallest building that can be built on x block is a building 1 story or x% (whichever is greater) Taller than the tallest existing building on that block." That way we ensure densificación must be gradual and people can feel secure in their level of density over short enough timespans and have time to adjust to necessary density changes.
*strokes beard but only with maximum pensivity*
Pour un vlog qui parle de Montréal, se serait la moindre des choses de mettre des sous-titres en français. Pas tous les Montréalais sont à l'aise en anglais!
This video isn’t about Montreal, if you want to help translate email me
Classic status quo bias and anchoring bias at display with the survey
Thank you for an actually reasonable take. As somebody who likes the wide, open and green suburbs, I chose to deal with a long ass commute to get away from the density of downtown. There isn't a one size fits all for ALL neighborhoods as much as Redditors on /r/montreal would like to make us believe. This is TH-cam your downvote has no power here Redditors!!! I'll speak my mind lmao
A bit more density benefits everyone, even suburbanites will have shorter commutes because the suburbs will be smaller and thus more people can be closer to downtown without being there
I somewhat agree as long as people are willing to let cities be cities and suburbs be suburbs. The issue that we run into though is suburban commuters who get cities plowed over with highways and only treat those cities as a place to commute to rather than peoples homes. Car can be king in the suburbs if that's what people desire, but the resistance to taking transit into the city rather than driving and not respecting the lives of urbanites is a serious problem in American cities. We build these giant urban freeway projects to accommodate commuters in cities and its gross. I feel like we should take the Paris approach that commuters shouldn't be considered in decision making and that anyone who enters Paris needs to respect the city and abandon their cars at the doorstep.
I don’t really think invading suburbanites with 5 over 1s is the best idea, but I do think that we could redevelop some strip malls here and there. You wouldn’t be personally offending your local activists who washes their hands when they see a poor person in their 15 meter radius.
That’s what’s been happening, and it’s not bringing in enough supply. Also what happens is those occasional spots end up having to be very dense because it’s the only place in the whole area. Then people complain about condos.
@@PaigeMTL That sounds terrible, what do we do then? Just building whole new neighbourhoods entirely? Social housing?
@@justsamoo3480 well this series is going to wrap up with a few videos that are very solution focused, these earlier videos are focused on the "Admitting we have a problem" stage. I'm stoked you're asking this question, because that's the open mind necessary to solve this and you have raised one solution. What would it take for a new neighbourhood to get your approval?
Please don't perpetuate the myth that American cities are bad because they were built after the car was invented. While many suburbs were (although the design was more motivated by racism, and enabled by the car), north american downtowns were, by and large, built prior to this and demolished to make way for car centric development.
Also more density doesn't have to mean taller buildings. Watch Ecogecko's latest video for examples on how to build higher density suburbs.
They are bad for walking because the population exploded during the age of the automobile and the continent provided seemingly endless cheap space that citizens could drive to. Europeans just had different inputs, unless of course you’re saying there’s something superior about Europeans?
@@PaigeMTL That's only really adjacent to my point. You can find old photos of pretty much any American city pre WWII which show something that urbanists today dream of, but if you look at the same shots now you'll probably just see a car park. The cities existed before the car, and were good before the car, and they were demolished for the car (and sometimes racism).
Much of Europe was demolished during the war (often by other Europeans), which gave a great opportunity to rebuild for the car, and many cities embraced that. The difference is that much of Europe (but not all) realised this was a mistake decades ago while much of North America (but not all) has continued to embrace car dependence. I don't think there's anything inherently superior about Europeans, I just prefer the (generally) European approach to this issue.
You want me to form my opinions by looking at a photo of say Montrose when the metro had a population of 500k and then look at the place today and go, man these people are so dumb! They should be like a European city that had to deal with 0.3% population growth during the age of the automobile? I can't believe that this (now) 6.5 million person sunbelt oil processing metropolis is finding it way harder than some European museum exhibit of a city to course correct for urban planning mistakes.
I like European urbanism too, that's why I live in Montreal, but I don't go dumping on Toronto and thinking they're dumb for just being a product of trends and forces. It's been hard enough correcting the mistakes made during the auto-centric doubling of Montreal's population, Toronto grew 6 times over in the same time period. So I just give them a thumbs up when they go the right direction, and believe that with time they'll get it right, they're smart people and lots of people are working on it there. They just have way more work to do and I'm lucky to inherit the upside of a fairly flat population in a historic city.
@@PaigeMTL North American cities were built for the car is a myth (or I'll concede as far as it being an oversimplification to the point of being misleading). Those cities existed before the car andthey could've kept going without car dependence, but instead they built racially motivated car dependent suburbs around the existing cities while demolishing the existing (at that point mostly minority occupied) urban neighbourhoods to make way for highways and car parks.
You don't really need to bring Europe into the argument at all, it would've been great if North America kept what it had and built upon it, as happened in New York and Montreal for example. There are more examples of this in Europe which is why you might look there for that style but it's not exclusively European. Japan's population also exploded post WWII and they also didn't fall into the trap of car dependance.
My second comment referred to Ecogecko's video which does have a heavy focus on Europe, because that's where the style of development he talks about has mostly happened, and I think that sort of thing would work well (among a wider range of "missing middle" housing) in North America. I am not aware of anything in that style that currently exists there, but I believe there is one being planned or built in Arizona at the moment.
I don't know why you're getting so stuck up about Europeans supposedly telling you what's right for NA. That's not the point I'm trying to make (although I might've said a bit in that direction since the first comment). I'm not even trying to argue (with my original comment) that the path NA has gone down is a bad one (although I do think that), it's purely that saying American cities were built post car is wrong, and its something that those weird pro car dependence people like to say as an excuse for why car dependence is inevitable in NA.
I think you gloss over a massive point at 10:05 - a lot of the cities of the world have not been built under democracy.
I've given this video a thrmbs down 👎 because it doesn't understand what a "superblock" is! Superblocks are not about block flats and dense population! They're about pedestrianising the streets between blocks in cities to reduce traffic and have safer neighbourhoods! What you're talking about is the stuff of nightmares! Get it right next time! 😢
the video seems pointless and the main conclusions seems to be that people are resistant to change and we shouldnt copy other cities urban planning. people are resistant to change on anything, thats obvious. thats to be disregarded when looking for optimum solutions because people are always going to fight it, until they actually have it and realize its better. people are stupid.
on the second point, that doesnt make sense either because there are good cities and bad cities and beautiful ones and ugly ones, objectively. we need to make _all_ cities have the traits of the good ones and beautiful ones. how that would be achieved is beside the point. it doesnt matter. people are going to resist and be against it no matter how you do it and people are dumb and also have no idea whats good for them and know nothing about proper city building and architecture. the only thing thats needed to be gathered from the public is what they like and what is psychologically good for them and what benefits their lives.
Getting my license next year and start stamping houses.
🏟🏚🏙🏠⛪🏘🏙🏗🏛🛕🕍🏠🏙🏡⛪🏣🏭🏪🏢🏤🏨🕌🏪🏥🏠🏟🏘🏠🏛🏘