In the Globe and Mail today: A two-wheel solution to a more livable city
Vancouver receives sage advice from Copenhagen via urbanist Jan Gehl.
If the arguments for increasing urban bicycle use are this powerful, why are so many cities having such a hard time setting aside guaranteed bike routes and lanes - making them the transport mode of choice, for work and leisure? ...
Unlike the Burrard Bridge test, "You have do things gradually, so that motorists don't realize what has been taken away from them," said Mr. Gehl...
Not that I would risk telling Toronto to slow down.
Copenhagen compliments its pro-bike policies with some hand-in-glove land use rules. New development zones need to have a 50-50 balance of work and living spaces, which makes for more lively streets, and makes the possibility of bicycle-based commuting much more of a reality. To do what Copenhagen has done, Vancouver would have to ban all further condo construction for the relatively few remaining large sites...
It's nice advice for a city that's infilling, like Toronto. Why not growing cities too, like Aurora, Milton, Whitby and Brampton? I'll keep dreaming.
Comments
Svend
Copenhagen was as carcentric
Fri, 03/07/2008 - 19:16Copenhagen was as carcentric as Toronto about 1970, they had to work hard to bring back the bike. About that time they dismantled their streetcar system like most major cities did, luckily Toronto kept much of theirs.
I'd like Toronto to experiment with a small car-free zone, I think U of T campus and a bit of the surrounding area would be the easiest to do. It's on a subway line, mostly populated with students and workers without cars.
I see Gould St. will be closed with the Ryerson renovation, that's great but why not extend this to a larger area?
Martino (not verified)
Toronto
Fri, 03/07/2008 - 20:28Toronto was as bikecentric as Copenhagen about 1970, they had to work hard to bring back the car. And then they did.
Luke (not verified)
[Yawn] Another article
Fri, 03/07/2008 - 22:26[Yawn] Another article focusing on the prominent role of bicycles and the diminished presence of autos in civilized, livable cities. More questions concerning our inability to recognize and act on this fact. Is anyone listening?
Always amusing to hear how the bicycle falls under the rubric of 19th century technology. The author neglects to similarly categorize the car powered by the internal combustion engine. Or compellingly elaborate how the contemporary effects of the first affirm the relevance of a time tested design, while those of the second betray a ruinous anachronism.
Invest in the public realm when you can buy home theaters, build basement rec rooms and lock yourself up in a wheeled cage for a couple hours a day? Let's get real: the idea is to avoid community, not engage it.