Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

URBAN PLANNING

London's new look offers lessons for Vancouver

TREVOR BODDY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:15 PM EDT 25/03/08

British architect Paul Davis doesn't shy from building social housing side-by-side with tony shops and galleries ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. John Ellis from San Francisco, United States writes: Trevor Boddy's article is very timely and informative. Paul Davis' designs in London show us that mixing social housing in an area like Kings Road can provide a rich diversity of income and household in a neighborhood as well as create dignified and handsome architecture. In many ways his work is a reinterpretation of the traditional patterns of housing that were built in 19th century London, when speculative development catered to a wide range of incomes. Workforce housing in the form of mews /carriage houses were built next to fancy housing for the wealthy. Corner stores were located beneath housing etc. This all helped to create a compact mixed-income neighborhood that gives places like Kings Road their interest and character in contrast to the monoculture of retail malls and gated residential communities where every household is the same.
  2. Antonio San from Canada writes: Once again, the premise of this Nth article by this reporter is that anyone regardless of income has a right to live in the best locations. This article follows the glorification of density. Then if greedy developers push this kind of demagogy, one really wonders why those who earn their perk rather than hoping some government might steal it for them, should pay through the nose to live in these best locations and make them attractive by spending. In essence, these who have succeeded in becoming high providers to the society through their success should not even enjoy their reward. Is being exposed to the view of luxury articles they cannot afford the receipe for break-ins or the suggestion the beneficiaries of sponsored housing will suddenly aspire to social success? What does "the rich diversity of income" so praised by the first poster here do to the art galleries, trendy shops and those who earned their spot in the sun? Is it a sort of retribution for their success? A societal way to shout Repent? Repent of what? Of being a high bracket taxpayer who belongs to the 21% who fork over 72% of the tax bill? This is just an intellectual satisfaction for some technocrats and ideologues. Is it the next phase of the ecomarxist ideology? So drop the hypocrisy would you? Tell us before we succeed: at least by hoping someone else will provide the perk, we should also enjoy the same right of waiting for the perk rather than earning it: permanent holidays for all then!
  3. David Jones from Vancouver, Canada writes: The premise of this article is that the area in question used to be "the locus of funky street culture" before global fortunes moved in, making the neighbourhood less "outrageous". The architect laments that he missed the social diversity and vitality of the old neighbourhood, so he set out to do something about it by integrating social housing into the new development. In contrast to the previous post, the architect argues that society's "high providers", having taken over the neighbourhood "with all their spending", has in fact spoiled the location, not improved it.
  4. eucharisto kleinberg from Canada writes: It seems to me that it is easier for developers/builders/architects to play at social engineering, than to concentrate in building better buildings, especially concerning suite to suite noise. How about spending some of that wonderful energy improving the quality of life for condo dwelers, by developing better sound insulation? Just a thought.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top