This is what sits on top of the Columbia Station, on Sky Train’s Expo Line in British Columbia:
Now that’s what I call an overbuild. More later.
This is what sits on top of the Columbia Station, on Sky Train’s Expo Line in British Columbia:
Now that’s what I call an overbuild. More later.
Underbuilt! It’s “garden city” nonsense that doesn’t have any variation and doesn’t create street life. Build what they built and then put a lot more between them.
I would prefer 6-10 story breadboxes (like Paris) within walking distance of stations rather than Vancouver’s “skinny tower” solution. Towers mostly benefit high-income condo buyers and property owners at the expense of lower-income renters and environmental sustainability. You can get the same density with mid-rise while increasing the street scale and reducing the tendency to build empty plazas or yards around the buildings. As long as parks are scattered around the city, I don’t see the objection to breadbox buildings of a modest height.
Some Skytrain Station areas may have a garden city aesthetic, but in my experience New Westminster is not that. The streets are bustling and lined with street retail or apartment buildings. The bases of these towers are sure to have retail all around them.
Zef – there is no conceptual trade-off between mid-rises and high-rises. In the Vancouver podium-and-tower concept, the first four floors are built like Paris: with apartments to the lot line with ground floor retail on retail streets. But on top of the podium is a skinny high-rise, adding even more residents than the podium can house. You get your mid-rise density and active street life, and on top of that you get some high-rise density, which adds further to the active street life.
Just because lots of garden city high-rise districts were built mid-century with excessive plazas and gardens, doesn’t mean that high-rises have to be built that way.