From All About Cities blog: Stealth density vs high rise density
This is a recent post on Wendy Waters' Vancouver blog All About Cities
Living in walkable, urban neighbourhoods is becoming trendy. And communities are defined as “walkable” when virtually everything you could need from groceries to clothes to plumbing supplies can be acquired on foot.
But to support those businesses, you need a dependable large supply of consumers. Walkable places therefore tend to have higher housing density than less-walkable nodes.
Most cities and many urban residents believe that the only way to increase density in an area is to add high rise buildings. Although perhaps a quick and efficient way to add people, high rises and even mid-rise structures often stand in stark contrast in an existing community of ground-oriented dwellings.
City planning departments and civic governments could do more to promote what I call stealth density. That is, density that you can’t really see from the street–it flies under the radar, so to speak.
Take the Walk Score. My neighbourhood (Old City) scored 80 out of 100. Read the rest of the post here.
This exchange on All About Cities stemmed from Wendy’s post Satellite Cities – Something to watch for
Frank Murphy Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Wendy, consider Nanaimo: potentially an hour, an hour and a half by foot passenger ferry into Vancouver harbour. Previous attempts at establishing a foot passenger ferry have failed but…
I know Richard Florida has done research as well on the satellite city and I’m not up to speed but –
What is the advantage to the smaller city. How does it rise above being just a “bedroom community”.
Wendy Waters Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hi Frank,
Nanaimo is a tricky one because of the necessity of water travel and the inconsistency of transport options (catamaran one month, then gone, etc.)
An advantage to the smaller city would be business growth and residential demand. Some small businesses need proximity to “the big city” to sell their goods or services, but don’t necessarily need to be there every day. Cheaper office or industrial space in a satellite city is attractive to them.
If a business can thrive serving a nearby big city, then it can retain and attract staff to the satellite as well.
Frank Murphy
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
I live out in Departure Bay and my walk score was 17 out of 100, a pretty dismal showing, but too high at that. It counted the distance to a caterer down my street as a restaurant that I could walk to -but no such luck. I am about 1.5-2 km from any amenities (excepting the Linley Valley (well actually DL 56).
I think that the Walk score concept is a good one. It would be interesting to be able to generate walk scores for whole areas of Nanaimo. People might make wiser choices, and we might stop subsidizing their infrastructure.
My walk score is 71. I thought it would be higher since I do walk to get everything I need.
My walk score at my old address in Edgewood properties was 8.
I guess I made the right choice. I must say my health and lifestyle have improved considerably since I’ve moved.
Unfortunately, the Walk Score site is seriously out of date (for instance, listed a book store that has been gone for about 8 years) and didn’t register transit data for my area or the park up the block. We scored under 30 but can walk, bike or bus to everything we need with the very greatest of ease. Now, if we could only put a heavy duty trailer on a bicycle to get lumber from Rona (also not listed)!
That said, it’s an excellent idea and does provoke serious thought.
My last address — on Lost Lake Road — scored 20 out of a 100 but I think it flattered it. It was at least a 20 minute drive in either direction for just about anything. Although, as in a lot of Nanaimo suburban neighbourhoods trails and first-rate parks like Neck Point were within a pretty easy walk.
Port Place Mall high density, high-rise proposal is one shady deal.
Does anyone realize that this very fat and tall building if allowed to be constructed would permanently shadow Front Street. In addition Piper Park, the Miners Cabin, the Museum Building, the Protection Island ferry berth and many boat slips in the inner harbour would be in shadow during the course of the day for much of the year. In the winter when sunlight is scarce and most appreciated it would cast a shadow entirely over Cameron Island and the good folks living there, over the harbour as far north as the fuel wharf, over Diana Krall Plaza, and as far west as Commercial Street, Nanaimo’s High Street.
The current height limit for the Port Place Mall lands is 65 feet. Because the water surface is another 30 feet lower the effective height is closer to 95 or even 100 feet and already oppressive enough when turned into a building wall as seen from the public docks.
Inquiring minds want to know why the planning department would even accept or contemplate such a submission much less take it to design panel for a ceremonial blessing! City Staff may wish to keep the public in the dark by not posting this proposal on the City website, but the rest of us I am sure prefer the daylight, the sunshine, and timely, full and complete information!
Where is the urban design rationale that would support this shady proposition? Where is the shadow analysis? Where are the street level views that illustrate impacts? How about a view from the Fingerwarf Office? How about a view from our public park? How about a view from Cameron Island? How about a little enlightenment for public consumption?
The mission of any planning department in any community is always to protect the public realm. It is not to promote designer tricks that illustrate towers disappearing behind each other as if there is not more than one anyway. We don’t see buildings from a thousand feet up in the sky; we see things from the ground. It’s not just a number in the sky, 285 feet somewhere up there that you can slip by an unsuspecting public hoping for approval its one monstrous pile of concrete.
There is no public benefit evident in this high-rise proposal that would warrant public support, planning support, or Council support. The 65 foot height limit should not be relaxed under any circumstances.
Stealth density??????????????