One thing missing in at least the GTA, is more mass transit integration to non-office bound workplaces. Industrial sites (such as Ford plant in Mississauga/Oakville) or various industrial sites around Steeles are not easily connected to mass transit. Even many office clusters in the GTA (like Markham, or along the highways in Mississauga) have poor mass transit connections. Building homes is one thing, people still need to get to work and leisure to get to maximize usage.
“Transit Oriented Development” suffers from something a little bit similar to the “15 minute city”.
Both are industry terms that make sense logically, and top down. But neither resonate with ‘normal’ people. No person who is not into urbanism would really get what they mean, and often would find what they create is not necessarily what they want.
TOD is a proposition for urban planners that fails to be a proposition for people who want to live with the benefits of a city.
The photos in the piece tell the story. Lots of units connected to some form of transit, but without a lifestyle. The Montreal South Shore example is ideal. Living out there by the highway isn’t terribly desirable.
We need to build on TOD so we create places that are lovable to live in, not just something deliverable or commercial to cities and their transit systems.
Is BC the only province to legislate TOD development around transit? The way they implemented it left a lot to be desired but the intention was in the right place. I predict the legislation will gradually be improved over time and other jurisdictions will copy BC’s TOD requirements.
1. Strongly agree on your focus on TOD that isn't Downtown-adjacent. That's when your city's TOD is so successful it's reclaiming sprawling car sewers. I also appreciate your spotlight on mega-TODs like Solar-Uniquartier. Incremental, organic infill is good. But mega-TODs are cohesive and masterplanned around transit at-scale.
2. What if universities built satellite campuses on quasi-suburban infill sites? And connected them to their main campuses via a 7-8 min, grade-separated rail trip? Imagine the sheer amounts of captive ridership. Especially if the satellite campus included 4K-5K apartments (open to both students and the general public), offices/labs for 7K-8K employees, ground-level retail, a hotel, and a major league soccer/football arena. With masterplanning you could fit all this in less land than UoT Mississauga.
TOD in Ottawa is too often Indistinguishable from strip development along a highway or stroad. Both use the same cookie cutter site layouts. I live in the centre of numerous urban infill projects and they are all built as freestanding independent sites with minimal neighbourhood building. Even the large city-owned infil behind my house - 9 towers plus towns plus a school plus a major rec centre - have each component designed separately with the first design consideration being how to access each by car. Pedestrian access isn't based on desires, it's based on gluing the sidewalk to the curb. I visit places like Portland Oregon and Bellevue WA where the quality of neighbourhood building for large projects is so much better. I don't know if the fault here lies with underambitious developers or a city planning department that cannot get out of their cars. Perhaps both.
One thing missing in at least the GTA, is more mass transit integration to non-office bound workplaces. Industrial sites (such as Ford plant in Mississauga/Oakville) or various industrial sites around Steeles are not easily connected to mass transit. Even many office clusters in the GTA (like Markham, or along the highways in Mississauga) have poor mass transit connections. Building homes is one thing, people still need to get to work and leisure to get to maximize usage.
“Transit Oriented Development” suffers from something a little bit similar to the “15 minute city”.
Both are industry terms that make sense logically, and top down. But neither resonate with ‘normal’ people. No person who is not into urbanism would really get what they mean, and often would find what they create is not necessarily what they want.
TOD is a proposition for urban planners that fails to be a proposition for people who want to live with the benefits of a city.
The photos in the piece tell the story. Lots of units connected to some form of transit, but without a lifestyle. The Montreal South Shore example is ideal. Living out there by the highway isn’t terribly desirable.
We need to build on TOD so we create places that are lovable to live in, not just something deliverable or commercial to cities and their transit systems.
Is BC the only province to legislate TOD development around transit? The way they implemented it left a lot to be desired but the intention was in the right place. I predict the legislation will gradually be improved over time and other jurisdictions will copy BC’s TOD requirements.
1. Strongly agree on your focus on TOD that isn't Downtown-adjacent. That's when your city's TOD is so successful it's reclaiming sprawling car sewers. I also appreciate your spotlight on mega-TODs like Solar-Uniquartier. Incremental, organic infill is good. But mega-TODs are cohesive and masterplanned around transit at-scale.
2. What if universities built satellite campuses on quasi-suburban infill sites? And connected them to their main campuses via a 7-8 min, grade-separated rail trip? Imagine the sheer amounts of captive ridership. Especially if the satellite campus included 4K-5K apartments (open to both students and the general public), offices/labs for 7K-8K employees, ground-level retail, a hotel, and a major league soccer/football arena. With masterplanning you could fit all this in less land than UoT Mississauga.
TOD in Ottawa is too often Indistinguishable from strip development along a highway or stroad. Both use the same cookie cutter site layouts. I live in the centre of numerous urban infill projects and they are all built as freestanding independent sites with minimal neighbourhood building. Even the large city-owned infil behind my house - 9 towers plus towns plus a school plus a major rec centre - have each component designed separately with the first design consideration being how to access each by car. Pedestrian access isn't based on desires, it's based on gluing the sidewalk to the curb. I visit places like Portland Oregon and Bellevue WA where the quality of neighbourhood building for large projects is so much better. I don't know if the fault here lies with underambitious developers or a city planning department that cannot get out of their cars. Perhaps both.