Good urban design — look, but don’t touch
There is a difference between false fronts on the set of a movie, and a real neighbourhood street. Any pedestrian could tell you quite easily what those differences are. Unfortunately, those differences seem lost on the Urban Planning Department, who think that a big box store dressed up like urbanism, and is both compatible and desirable for Osborne Village. Anyway, a column I wrote about this issue was published in the Free Press today.
Osborne Village in 1987. It doesn’t just look like relatively dense urbanism, it actually is. (Photo credit: Winnipeg Building Index)
***
Here are a couple of nuggets taken from the Urban Planning Division’s report on the Shoppers expansion plan:
Compared to the previous application, the new proposal has roughly the same amount of retail square footage. (See Appendix B for square footage breakdown) However, it offers several improvements over the previous proposal:
• 6 more parking stalls (29 stalls instead of 23 stalls)
• Removal of the garbage dumpster with the installation of a garbage room inside the building
• New loading dock, which will eliminate truck deliveries from Roslyn Road
Yes, this is a very important consideration in a densely-populated, mixed use neighbourhood with good transit service.
“Appendix A Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan – Applicable Policies
Policy - Comply (Yes or No)
3.1.1.C.2 - Ensuring building design reinforces activity and vitality at the ground level through the use of architectural elements and accommodate features to create interest at the street level.
Yes. Most windows at ground level will be transparent, allowing pedestrians to look into the store. Windows which are not transparent will have panels depicting the history of Osborne Village, which will create visual interest.”
Because, really, who needs to experience a normal city neighbourhood when one can just look at historical pictures of one while walking through quasi-suburbanism?
