Transit-Oriented Development’s Evil Twin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- You’ll see the term “Transit-Oriented Development” thrown around all across urbanist UA-cam, social media, and even academic texts. The concept seems simple: put popular things near good transit. But, what actually separates an effective TOD from an ineffective TOD, or, a “Transit-Adjacent Development?”
Based on the ideas presented in Kamruzzaman, et al. (2015). Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection.
Footage, script: Jackson Hejtmanek
Script, voiceover: David Tirman
Editing: Alessandro D'Apice
Creating an island of walkability amidst a sea of car infrastructure is effectively just building a weird mall with extra steps.
Remove the housing and you get a lifestyle center that you often see around these days.
It's because that development was phase 2 of the area that is half the reason the REM even exists
Good
Until getting around on foot or bicycle the car will rule. Making street that focuses on bicycle and foot traffic is part of the solution. And by that I mean narrow streets with raised pedestrian crossings to sidewalk level and separate bicycle lanes.
This is a great start with mixed use development. Hopefully this gets expanded on in the near future.
No it's not! But your comment highlights why I would never live in America. That, and the obsession with guns. Not everyone espoused to be like America.
I'm very proud of being a Brit, and a European. And proud of the fact that European cities are generally 'walker friendly', and that the European attitude towards public transport is one of it being a necessity - not a luxury or some curious oddity.
The problem with TOD in the US and Canada is just what demonstrated here, Instead of bringing transport into existing neighborhoods and changing the zoning of the area the transport passes out of the residential areas and, if successful, creates a small island of high density area that is not connected to anything else.
The need should be densifying the vast low density areas that already exist instead of trying to create artificial pockets of ones. Bringing transport to existing areas and enabling natural development of an area is the way to go, even if it's harder to implement in the US and Canada.
Pockets like that should only be used as part of a bigger plan for the area that will connect them to the rest of the area so a good local transit system is also required.
Vienna, widely known as the best city in the world to live in (mostly due to its accessibility, pedestrian friendliness and low housing costs), still built a high density public housing development called "Seestadt" in the suburbs, though to be fair they did build a metro connection to the development.
@@cooltwittertagYes, they did, but they do not build a line hoping that the area will be developed. The develop the area and makes sure it has transit connection with an extension of the U2 into the new development, the S80 station at the edge and they are now building the new tram Route 27.
The area itself, although on the edge of the city, already has some pretty dens areas around it.
Come again? This kind of development is extremely unusual in Canada and probably next to non-existent in the US. One of the reasons for that is that rapid transit infrastructure generally is quite lagging in North America in that suburban build-out precedes rapid transit by years and usually decades. To have a rapid transit line extending to the edge of the suburbs with a TOD planted around one of the stations is very rare. What happens more often, indeed, is in fact closer to what you're describing: a rapid transit line is pushed through a low density suburban area, usually along an arterial at considerable expense but since it is already more-or-less "built out" as a "functional" (for lack of a better term) suburb it can take decades for meaningful change to occur as few landowners have any reason to change what was already "working" as intended during those buildings' useful lifespans.
Also when areas like this are built, they’re extremely expensive to live in because they’re quite literally the only competition in town. When new neighborhoods are built alongside and connected to existing ones, it creates a ton more competition which makes it way more affordable for the average person.
True community is a linkage of multiple communities in close proximity....a '15 minute community' surrounded by highways instead of other '15 minute communities' is simply a vertical faceless suburb.
Los Angeles, in other words.
When I first stayed in Los Angeles for an extended period of time in the 90s, I walked from Culver City to Venice -- I was young, and green, and didn't know any better. I was gawked at by passing motorists on the freeway as if I had been dropped from Mars.
I am a Chicago native, who has also lived for long periods of time in Boston and in Manhattan. When I went to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, I remember thinking, "This is nice, but all they've done is build four blocks of what an actual city is like." Of course, in the real cities that I was used to, there were miles and miles of pedestrian neighborhoods like that, and when you tired of walking, you just hopped on public transportation to take you to another neighborhood.
People have different preferences. A plurality of people will always live near the core, which should be facilitated by continued high rise expansion downtown. Outpost developments are indeed vertical suburbs, which is a good thing. People get access to the lower land cost and open spaces of the suburbs, while still having the option to live car free or car lite.
The problem with those "live-work-shop" developments is that the people who work there can't afford to live there so it's basically a mall and a subdivision on top of each other with the usual amount of car commuting in and out.
I was having a conversation about this yesterday with our TOD planner in Denver & realized they aren’t able or willing to recognize the difference between the two areas, from a humanity, quality of life perspective.
With the older neighborhood model, there’s destinations places to visit beyond the “TOD”. In the corporate TOD, when you reach the edge (clearly defined typically), there’s no where else to go, no neighborhood to explore further-almost another version of subdivision trapping without a car.
I wouldn’t mind living in one like in the video, as long as it’s big enough. I would rather pay less for land and wait for development to surround the new TOD
The car brain is realll
Vertical subdivisions with many amenities, but still a subdivision.
people want to build new 'walkable neighborhoods' forgetting neighborhoods are connected to eachother, not to freeways and stroads. its like when they wanted to build new 'downtowns' as malls but forgot the part where people live downtown next to the stores
One set of footage is from winter and the other is summer too, exacerbates the visual contrast.
yeah, it was really unfair because the trees had no green so it looked dead, places like these need evergreens or vines, but i'm sure it looks better in the summer. perhaps more grass too
Whether the footage is from a weekday or a Saturday can also make a huge difference.
This video would have benefited by mentioning two other elements: 1. The excessive price of new buildings attracting a higher-end type of population who's activities are not limited to hanging around. 2. The fact that the entire neighborhood is essential consisting of 3 streets. The critical mass needed for a lively neighborhood is well above that
Austin, Texas built several of these medium-density mixed use neighborhoods (The Domain, Mueller, The Triangle, whatever South Lamar and Ben White is going to be called). Minus the transit, of course. The areas are nice, once you drive to get to them. The problem is that the are too small to sustain themselves. Everything relies on people coming in from the outside. People who live there still need to leave it to get pretty much anything.
so, suburbs.
I've been there last summer. I think there's a couple problems preventing it from attracting more people:
- Everything there is a chain. I don't think there is a single business there that isn't also somewhere else.
- It still is pretty new and is not fully built yet. Once there is more stuff, it might look a bit more lively.
agreed, expecting new developments to look and feel lived in from the get go is setting yourself up for failure. I do agree as well though that having really wide lane roads around is bad. I don't think any road should be wider than 2 lanes in either direction
Funny enough this is a problem a lot of purpose-built Soviet neighborhoods and towns ran into. Yes you could walk within them and there was train access to major cities, but they were really only walkable within the neighborhood. So after the collapse, when a lot of the factories these towns were built around closed, they turned into ghettos because those who lived there had a hard time accessing employment opportunities elsewhere.
The problem here is just people not being able/willing to move back to the city. Dying towns are not a problem so much as economics working as intended. If a town only has one industry, people should be able to live and work there without owning a car. If the one industry at a remote town ceases to be useful, it is more efficient for people to reintegrate into the population centers. Suburban/ rural TOD should always be a more niche living arrangement for people who are willing to accept longer commutes and fewer amenities or opportunities, in exchange for lower land cost.
This feels like the kind of compromise you get when all of the forces who want to build transit-oriented development crash into all the forces that want to keep existing car-centric neighbourhood intact. You end up building on whatever land you can get.
BTW, is there a school and/or community centre in this development? Can kids walk to school and after-school activities?
There is no school. Families shouldn't live here they live in Brossard which caters to their needs and kids in that neighborhood do walk to school.
@@mickeygraeme2201 I live in a neighbourhood with a similar (probably higher) density and it's great not just for me and my daughter but for all the families that live here. Being able to walk to school and work and the community centre and the library and groceries, and then being able to hop on a couple of different buses and a streetcar to take us anywhere else in the city is perfect.
Looking at Brossard on the map, it looks... depressingly car-centric? Might be okay for other people, but it doesn't look like a place where I'd personally want to raise a family. Every spot I drop into in street view looks exhausting for somebody without a car - cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac, not even sidewalks in a bunch neighbourhoods! Just dead streets, single-family houses and cars, cars, cars. Not for me. But I guess everybody likes different things.
Why did stroads immediately come to mind?
@@mickeygraeme2201 Why are we building an entire mini-city that families can't even live in? That excludes so many people... Or forces them to drive their kids to school...
@@SebPlaysAnything Why would any family even want to live here when it is more expensive to construct and brossard is right across the street. the mini ciity is clearly for 18-27 year old yuppies and for families to come and shop. That is a perfectly good end of line mixed use development.
When I visited Montreal last fall, I saw a lot of people get on and off at this stop. The problem is the next stop over is a park and ride, so it’s really only useful transit in one direction. Great development though, would love to see more places embrace 10-20 story buildings in TOD.
That park and ride gets most of its passanger from busses that stop at the terminal
This is similar to Toronto's Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. Transit-adjacent development, where everyone has to continue their journey by car. In fact, because of the sheer size of the towers and the lack of surrounding transit-accessible destinations (including even grocery stores), most people left their condos in cars on roads that were never designed to handle so much traffic. Highway 7 and the 400 became an absolute mess to navigate because of this with a wait time of over 15-20 mins to get from Jane St to Hwy-400 - a journey that's about 1 km.
So hopefully they build more destination with in the area. It looks like there is still a ton of building taking place and in the near future.
Toronto ranked the 3 rd worst city in the world for traffic and pollution according to Tom Tom traffic index 2023 ... Toronto does not define Canada but Asia ( India , China)
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I think it's unfair to compare the two - when one of the videos was taken on a beautiful day, and the other one was taken on a bad day. It would be easier if you took video on a sunny day. This seemed like a very dishonest way of framing the problem with the new development.
That being said, I did live in a TOD neighborhood for 2 years and I would say I was rather frustrated by the busy roads that surrounded it, and I felt like there was no consideration for the fact that people have to cross these horrible dangerous streets. The other problem is that it seems in my TOD neighborhood, almost everyone had a car because, well, people aren't resourceful as I am and this meant that half the buildings in the development were ugly parking garages.
Sometimes good planning is going the best with what you have where you have it and when you have it. This is still better than what could've been the alternative. No one is going to knock an old Highway down just for a new development.
I couldn’t help but notice that this development looks EXACTLY like 3 other walkable developments in the south. I feel like that just makes it clear that another issue with these TODs is that they are so nationalized and profit driven that they end up all looking the same, even in one of the most culturally interesting parts of North America: Quebec.
Or could it be that the clip you showed of Montreal was just taken in the summer while the clip of the suburb was taken in the winter, this is clearly an unfair comparison.
I think a big part of the problem here is the piecemeal approach urbanism that seems so common. Individual walkable developments like this only work if there's a comprehensive road/ land use plan already in place to make sure their neighboring areas are equally walkable. I think passing laws that ensure good urbanism in all new developments is the key.
Kinda reminds me of the recent Not Just Bikes review of Montreal, but you got to the point much much quicker.
TAD’s are actually pretty lively in the summer/warmer climates in general. This is Quebec in Winter.
reminds me a ton of assembly row in somerville ma just 4 miles from downtown boston
city promotes it as a modern transit hub with a huge walkability/biking emphasis.... only its next to a state highway, the interstate, and a 6 lane parkway directly north of it....
it literally doesn't make sense to not get there by car at that point.
came from youtube recommend, new subscriber
The point about the new development being isolated in a sea of cars is an excellent one, but the video evidence about pedestrian presence and bike lane use showed the new development in winter and the old neighborhood in summer, so a bit apples-to-oranges. Backing this up with data and apples-to-apples comparisons would be additionally convincing.
For someone who lives at Solar Uniquartier myself (Nobel Tower), I must say, it's not really fair to show Plateau Mont-Royal in summer vs Solar in a cold season when a lot of people prefer to use the underground structure to travel between buildings. In summer, the streets are much busier, terraces are full of people and we have a public market on week-ends in Place de la Gare. It's totally different. I myself stay indoors in winter as I can can go to the Convenience store, grab a coffee at Starbucks or even get a restaurant meal or hop on the REM without even setting foot outside! Especially when it's -20 C outside!
Also, Solar is not completed yet, it's merely halfway done. We expect a farmer's market at Place Equinox in a future phase and we hope to see new groceries which will make Solar much more autonomous. Right now, we still need a car to go grocery shopping. The closest is 20-30 minutes walk away. But it is advancing quickly.
In the summer, I love walking around Solar and recognizing people on the terraces, having waiters at restaurants I go to wave at me when I walk by, it's a big village where people know each other, having shops where people know what you like and prepare it for you when you walk in. It may not have the charm of Plateau, but I very much enjoy living there.
They always do that on this continent, a dinky little vertical suburb next to a highway interchange and boxed in by parking lots on the other sides, and they promote it as TOD. There’s usually even an ersatz little park in the middle, surrounded on all four sides by car traffic. They used to call it new urbanism.
This is the exact issue with the new neighborhoods their building in my area. They're pretty and dense, but they usually only have 1-2 stores if any, and are isolated from the other neighborhoods. You can usually only go between the neighborhoods via the 4 lane arteria, and the neighborhoods are usually smaller than neighborhood usually are in the area. Result is not that many people walking, lots of cars.
Yeah, biking is great, especially in snow in Canada. Can't wait to do that.
I've checked Solar Uniquartier at google map and LMAO why had they built the station at the front of spacious luxury single family homes zones, instead of the vast vacant land beside where they can start high density development from ground up and build tons of condo towers.
The whole point of TOD is extending the city to outskirt and mitigating the density and housing issues.
Hard disagree. TOD away from the city core are supposed to be outposts. The point is you can live car free in an otherwise remote area and still have a normal life. If the neighborhood population grows, this place can eventually evolve into a full city with more self contained services inside the highway block.
"highway block" sounds so wrong tbh
It seems odd until you remember that the 30 is that area's Suburban/Rural demarcation line meaning that moving south you go from suburban development to an island of built up urban development to suddenly farms as the building up of the area, which only began about 14 years ago, still has a long way to go as the corridor around the 10 builds up.
This reminds me of the Cul de Sac brand of "car free development" where the residents are pretty much a captive market to the limited choice high price "grocery" (convenience) store, with the same kind of uncanny, disconnected sparse vibe. At least they flat out ban residents from having cars, so it does force people to be more creative, and I hope the pricing reflects that.
Looks like you are showing a summer day vs a winter day
I like your content. Maybe you can film a bit more ‘steady’ (less moving).
Awesome short, information-dense content!! Love to see it. Subscribed for more
One of these is under development in Orange County, CA- called OCVibe. It's supposed to be a large park with retail and housing flanked by the Honda Center and the Metrolink station (Metrolink is a SoCal commuter rail). OC is extremely car dependent and this project doesn't plan to fix any of these issues. In fact, it plans to include several parking garages. With it also being directly next to the freeway, I don't see how this project will encourage walkability. Even with it next to a train station, there isn't a local subway that could take people there easily. This is a poorly thought out project but I see many of similar ones in development
I think they will make the same mistake at Fairview Pointe-Claire. Everyone is driving and when the REM starts operation, I wonder how many West Islanders will drive to the station from Pierrefonds, DDO and Kirkland, creating a traffic nightmare. The Plateau is very different because of the population density and the REV is a success because of how it uses the cars to create a barrier against moving traffic.
You know, I could almost take those scenes in the old town for Amsterdam or somewhere
How new is the featured development exactly? If it's literally brand new then there probably aren't that many people living in the development yet, hence the streets will be eerily empty.
I wouldn't be surprised if this development gradually gets more foot traffic over time as people learn of its existence and start moving to and/or hanging out there.
griffintown has been "lived in" for years now and its still completely sterile and the worst district in central montreal, at least the centre-sud crackheads have more character than the yuppies
Was looking for someone to say this. It also takes time for community to form in a new place like this. Of course historic areas are more integrated and more is going on, They've had time for people to build habits around the layout, for people to invest in the community. Give it some time, the neighborhood isn't complete when the buildings are finished.
Sure, but it's innately car centric still. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be need for all those parking spots. They know most people will drive, and being near a transit station is just a trend they're fallowing. This isn't TOD
The problem with urbanism today is takes like this one. This isn't a perfect urbanist utopia, this is reality. Building a new neighborhood around a new transit stop is a huge step up from the most likely plausible alternative - far flung suburban development.
Solar Uniquartier *is* far-flung suburban development. It’s next to a highway cloverleaf in the very edge of the Montreal exurbs, with no walkability to anything outside the subdivision.
Well done : having buildings near a subway is not the guarantee that inhabitants will use it instead of their cars.
Plus usually a transit station will only cover one axis of travel. When people don’t go downtown, they’ll likely drive.
A bit strange. For few months I lived in Montreal suburb with tall building, and our building had a parking spot for every unit. Yet the walks to shopping, restaurants, a bank, and even a big nice park were easy (no silly stuff like driving to get your exercise walk in greenery), just regular, non-intimidating intersections, and if we were inclined to go to the center, bus on the main street was available. I guess it was not a true suburb, no interruptions of "urbanity" between the center and that neighborhood.
Yes simply building tall towers beside big transit station does not in itself create less car dependent neighborhod
These greenfield "walk-bike-transit" developments tend to have this problem. We need incremental development from the center out. Form based zoning, reduced permitting barriers for small projects, and land value taxes all make easier for downtown to get closer to their free market equilibrium development level.
This is why the stereotypical suburban shopping malls failed in America. Originally envisioned as a futuristic pedestrian utopia, it became just as lifeless as the parking lots around it because they were just nucleuses surrounded by cars and cars and cars. I pray this new neighbourhood design in Montreal doesn't fail like that just because work still needs to get done. Downsizing that huge interchange would be a step in the right direction
This reminds me of the Mosaic District in Fairfax Virginia.
I want to make it clear first that this looks like a really interesting video. However, the unnecessary...music? is making it unwatchable for me.
Why is it not front and center what Mackinac Island city Michigan USA did long ago?? They get millions of visitors a year yet zero car accidents...they have a great policy for bike and horses
Is the thumbnail an advertisement for the development from the 60s?
I think this assessment is premature. These communities will fill-in with time
Simulated urbanism is still better than no urbanism…
True
Okay folks, what's a TOD. I know I'm not one of the cool kids, but I want to learn.
He mentions it in the video. Transit-Oriented Development.
This is fascinating actually...it's sort of like merging walkability, which is all the rage, with a luxury resort. It's just profit oriented, so of course it's not gonna be quite right. Values that transcend profiteering have to be centered amidst city life if there's any hope of genuine community and livability.
So, why did they try to build an urban style development in a place that didn't have it in the first place? Stop recreating cities in suburbs.
People want city living, but there isn’t enough space in the city.
This is retrofitting the suburbs.
Because the developers of it and the landlord/developer of the Dix30 district across the 10 from it built and operate the REM and are in the process of urbanization around the 10.
That place is basically downsides of suburban living and downsides of urban living
Like a stroad: combining the worst aspects of a street and of a road!
real TOD vs bullseye model. MBTA-C Act advocates, we should get ahead of this while the reforms are still rolling out
The REM isn't going anywhere near there for awhile...
the overcast day doesn't help, but that new development is digustingly depressing, i had a physical repulsion to the tall buildings with concrete paver wasteland between them, with the sparse winter trees, it looks like Thneedville but with even less soul
its the kind of place when you clap you hear metallic echo, where robots patrol to keep citizens in line, cameras on every street corner
i hate it so much, and i think apartment buildings are essential. the designer has no idea how to make a place comfortable. but your decision to use overcast winter footage is kinda unfair.
Dull lifeless concrete, a lack of greenery, and no local culture doesn't help.
Maybe the lesson here is that modern planners need to design neighbourhoods that are a century or two old.
Garden State Plaza redevelopment in NJ be like
Why is the audio so low?
Islands of walkability/bikeability aren't practical. You need dozens of these little neighborhoods linked together to provide the residences, shops, workplaces and other amenities that make a city viable.
So basically Washington DC
I don't think that it was the planners who messed up. Don't you agree? It seems like you blamed them.
Hard to Compare Places ORGANICALLY Built by People vs a Company Built " DONE for You" Project . People Build Places / not The Other Way Around .
To be fair, the comparision made in a sunny weather vs a seemingly cold and grim day so ofc less pedestrians and bikes in the concrete jungle.
But the main problem is... it is a soulless concrete jungle. You dont want to walk there, spend your quality time while you could spend it in a more beautiful place.
These buildings are huge. Out of human scale. They belong to some soulless corporation. Monolithic. It does not stimulate you, it is not interesting. As le corbusier said these are machines for living or working but nothing else. You wont have a sense of community here just a sense of either earn money or spend it and go away.
so it's basically another lifestyle center?
It's not the Plateau 'Montreal'. It's the Plateau Mont-Royal. I know they sound similar, but it's not the same thing.
He said mont-royal not Montreal it just sounds like that
Calling it Transit Adjacent Development is too nice. Call it Development Near Transit (DNT). DNT has all the expense of TOD but to get financed and built it also has to have all the auto infrastructure of a typical car dependent project. Having both is wildly expensive. DNT = don't
I wonder if these mixed-use TOD subdivisions are the 100 year later version of the modernist city with its soulless structures?!
You’re right that this new development looks to be too far-oriented. But the solution isn’t just to build a low rise development. You can’t. Because it’s on the outskirts so some people will need their cars for some trips. So you’re faced with a choice. Over time, hopefully the parking lots fill in. But you can’t compare the outskirts of a city to a neighborhood in the middle of one.
Je ❤ Montréal ...
Interesting vid except for the POINTLESS music noodling in the background. Drives me nuts.
I went and saw that dumb place firsthand, That type of built brings rich entitled people who values individualism and wealth more than saying a "Thanks, have a nice day!" to a baker's cashier.
It's missing community.
Vast majority of shoppers aren't local to that Neiborhood, locals are all stuck indoor their overpriced concrete AC shitboxes watching LCN on loop.
Broke mfers are the rudest mfers
the whole while, l'esclavage ilot continue supposing Corporateria's alienation be static...
it's missing colour and trees too
we should remove cars from streets as much possible. the problem is only cars, and the number of them. cars ownership is so so cheap and all it costs are paid by those who don't own a car, and we only see the cheap fuel cost or insurance (comparing to europe) Canada have a long long way to become free from car dependency
went to dix30, sucks. Live in the plateau, transit access is really eh and bike lanes suck, but oh well.
TOD is terrible. It creates induced demand around stations that makes it impossible for drivers to ditch their cars and switch to public transport. The result is clearly visible in sound transit Lynnwood extension where over development of TOD has caused sound transit to warn people may not be able to get on a train for at least two years after the line opens due to lack of capacity. The problem is so bad, bus routes that were redundant will need to remain open to handle the overflow, and cars are expected to not decrease at all since drivers will simply avoid the train. So all TOD accomplished was moving buildings better suited in the downtown core up the line and caused the collapse of the planned capacity for a line that was supposed to remove cars from the inner city. Ah, another failure of bad urbanism 😂
Also: ugly, grey, lack of architectural variety, non-human scale, no established trees, wide roads
I also believe that the demonstrated bikeable, two storey high development probably sells/rents for 2x-3x of what the soulless TOD does, and even the latter is way too expensive.
Urbanistics aside, only a privileged minority will be able to afford the perfect spot. The rest of consumers will have to compromise.
The parking surrounding it is naturally ugly and unattractive but I wouldnt say that is the main reason. Its a new development and honestly looks higher end. as well. Majority of residents prob drive to and from their residence if they live there. I would argue that if there was more housing there of different classes the density will be higher and more walkable.
If the majority of residents in this type of development are driving it means the development/planners didn't manage maximum parking properly.
The sister of Quartier Dix30. Just suburban with cars who try again to be hype in a cheap way
So TOD with no transit? Yeah that won’t work.
The REM is a medium capacity mode of transit (light metro with decent frequencies)
Maybe build more interesting places. We are all searching for identity, part of it comes from a sense of place and it takes a lot of time to imbue character, you can not cheat this by making things look historic, we know it s a lie.
Looks like a concrete brutalistic dystopian nightmare. Utterly lacking in warmth and charm.
Background noise is too annoying. Can not can stand the stupidity.
You're mumbling, please speak up and work on your sound mixing/editing.
It’s also pretty ugly.
"What's "transit"?" - 'Murica
A way people got around 100 years ago and we just didn't modernize it like the rest of the world
It's as if they WANT you to DRIVE THERE AND THEN WALK AROUND the area. It's an open mall masquerading as a neighborhood.