Deconstructing Density: Part 2

In part 1, I took a look at the basic benefits of density. Pretty straight forward stuff. Now for the fun part.

Winnipeg in all its splendor

Let’s look at the question of whether or not, despite the benefits of density, Winnipeg is bursting at the seams, citizens rising up and demanding a new neighborhood of suburban delights. Onward to Waverley! Infinite growth!

The city currently occupies 464.1 square kilometers and has a population of 633,451.  (2006 Census) That makes for  1365.2 people per square kilometer. If Winnipeg were a perfect circle (ignoring the curvature of the Earth), it would have a radius of 12.15km.

Keep that circle thing in mind…

Now, how big would Winnipeg be if it were as dense as some of the most successful, world-renowed, cosmopolitan, wealthy cities of the world? Would it be much smaller?

Well, if it were as dense as Hong Kong, Winnipeg would now look like:

That’s right. Armstrong Point just barely makes it into the city! No St. James, Transcona, Maples, Fort Garry, Assiniboia, Charleswood, South St. Vital, River East, Linden Woods, or yes, Waverley West.

The city would eliminate over 95% of its area, reducing the burden of roads, snow clearing, sewers, and pretty much everything. The average person would never be more than 20 minutes walk from the center and 20 minutes walk from the edge. It would take me 12 minutes to bike across the entire city, and a slow cyclist could take 25 minutes. All businesses would be within minutes of all their customers; we could service the entire city with 20 subway stations.

What, you say, this is just too dense! Okay, let’s switch to Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. I lived in Kobe for a few years, hiking in the lush mountains for hours, going to remote parks and hot springs within city limits. Still had great public transportation, though. Osaka is even 5 times less dense than Hong Kong!

So, here’s your new Winnipeg:

 

There we go. 5 times more spread out. Ah! The space. But wait! Still no Transcona, St. James, Maples, Lindenwoods, Southdale, River East, Fort Richmond, and yes, Waverly West! Surely not!

Well, fine, you say, we could have this kind of density and reduce the burden of infrastucture by 80%, walk more, cycle more, polute less, be healthier, save money, and build a basic train system. But, surely this density must be because you are looking to Asia for your comparisons. Are there any Western examples to look at?

Sure:

With London, we now add an extra 660 meters to the radius of the city limits, adding no  neighborhoods, though finally starting to take in a bit of St. James. Still no Assiniboine Park.

The purpose of this thought experiment is not to suggest that we re-make Winnipeg in circular form or that there is no place for Transcona (where I grew up) or Charleswood. Nope. The purpose is to suggest that we must rethink our development plans. The city could double in population size and would still have enough room without adding a single kilometer of road or pipeline. The city should aim to put all the growth into the center. It would save millions of dollars, dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, increase use of and demand for better public transportation, increase community involvement, reduce crime, reduce the burden of transportation costs on individual families, and much more.

UPDATE: Some of the raw data:

City	Density (pop/km2)	Winnipeg equivalent area	Radius (KM)
Hong Kong	29400	21.55 sq km	2.61km
Teipei	14750	42.95	3.70
Seoul-Incheon	10050	63.03	4.48
Rio-de-Jenero	6900	91.80	5.41
Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto	6350	99.76	5.64
London	5100	124.21	6.29
Tokyo-Yokohama	4350	145.62	6.81
Pairs	3400	186.31	7.70
New York	1750	361.97	10.73
Vancouver	1700	372.62	10.89
Winnipeg as circle	1365	464.01	12.15

Deconstructing Density: Part 1

I’m constantly amazed by the plans to expand the city to infinity and beyond. Here is the list of positives associated with design that promotes density, according to the Ministry for the Environment in New Zealand:

“Urban design that promotes a higher density of buildings and public spaces (in conjunction with other conditions such as mixed use, good building design and adequate open space) can:

• provide cost savings in land, infrastructure and energy
• reduce the economic costs of time spent travelling
• help concentrate knowledge and innovative activity in the core of the city
• be associated with lower crime and greater safety
• help preserve green spaces in conjunction with certain kinds of urban development
• reduce runoff from vehicles to water, and emissions to the air and atmosphere (though air emissions may be more locally concentrated)
• help encourage greater physical activity, with consequent health benefits
• promote social connectedness and vitality.”

 Well, isn’t that special.

This stuff ain’t rocket science, but we seem to have lost sight of it in Winnipeg. That said, perhaps the city is dense enough already and is really running out of room, so we need to expand. We’ll examine this in Part Deux. (And they’ll be pictures!)

The Core Strikes Back

Good article in the Free Press today on energy prices pushing downtown redevelopment. If the savings gained by “living on the edge” and mooching off the city while not paying your fair share for the roads and other services you use are eroded by gas prices, this can only be a good thing for the city of Winnipeg.

From Christopher Leo:

It’s a safe bet that most of the residents of Oak Bluff travel regularly up and down that nice stretch of highway, thoughtfully provided by Winnipeg taxpayers to make it easier for them to enjoy Winnipeg services while evading Winnipeg taxes. Similar situations prevail on all sides of the city, and in all directions access is being improved to municipalities with highly competitive cost structures, hungering to compete with Winnipeg for new development. Each time they succeed in attracting a development that might otherwise have been located in the city, Winnipeg becomes a little bit poorer.

In short, the city’s expenses are already out of control, and our decision-makers are bending every effort to drive them still farther out of control. How will we bring the cost of infrastructure development under control? Ask the decision-makers in City Hall, and they will tell you that the solution is public-private partnerships.

If the city finally gets around to not funding these ’burbs and charges the non-residents a fair price, then combined with the increasing cost of (and possible peak-oil impossibility of) maintaining these “communities”, these sub- and ex-urbs are dead.

Moving to my neighbourhood, using cycling and public transportation….soon I will be mainstream!