On the problems with mid-rise and tower housing densification in the midst of car-dependent sprawl

There’s nothing urban about sprawl, it’s more correctly suburban sprawl. It’s not caused by the housing form itself, it's caused by single-use residential car-dependent zoning. Single family, mid-rise blocks, or towers, all contribute to suburban sprawl.

The most compelling argument against this kind of development is that they immediately introduce 100s of automobiles which will be required for even the most basic task. And this at a time when it’s clear reducing the number of car trips is an urgent priority.

Some buildings are for people 55+. As the population ages more and more people will be unable to drive. So if developments like these are supported by an “age in place” argument, in fact increasingly people will be aging in place with an eventual devastating loss of independence.

Compare these projects with the benefits this level of densification would bring to an already at least basically walkable neighbourhood. More and better shops, possibility of improved transit, lively and safe street activity, cycling a practical alternative for many tasks.

I want to see the City be proactive in identifying “20 minute neighbourhoods” where at least a certain number of amenities, shops, services etc are present within a 20 minute walk and proactively promote this kind of density into those neighbourhoods. Win-win.

"If we wish to reduce our carbon footprint, the single most powerful tool at our disposal is middle-density intensification in established, walkable neighbourhoods.” @alexbozikovic The Globe and Mail https://t.co/Bsrvj8JOnP

Walks, not Google Streetview.

I love this quote. This is how Planning ought to be done. #WalkableCity #OneMinnesota pic.twitter.com/HOTGcTYpA4

— Nate Hood (@natehoodstp) February 11, 2019

---