Comment 110712

By higgicd (registered) | Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:39:03 in reply to Comment 110710

Reading your comments again, I overlooked "at streetwall" so for that I apologize and think we agree in principle on that. It just irks me at all the opposition to infill development unless it fits exacting requirements. I have never disagreed with them as laid out in the article, but see them in light of other realities around. Mid-rise is a tough sell and even in Toronto it is only now starting to happen, we all want more people downtown, but land prices are such that it is still more profitable to operate a parking lot than build something more useful, this is a GO hub and future LRT corridor, etc. What better place for adding density.

I assume we all want the same goals of environmental sustainability, economic/tax efficiency, neighbourhood vitality, a bigger voting base for urban issues, etc. but through both awful zoning regulations that codify the unachievable paradox of mid-rise yet auto-friendly development and local opposition to change we also shoot all of that in the foot then collectively complain about sprawl, traffic, and high house prices.

I'd be interested to see if the developer would actually build with no parking, as while a solution to the above problem it might be something they think a portion of their target market values. Too much push back though and things just go to the OMB which is unfortunate for all involved, but also in my opinion a godsend for achieving the big picture benefits of infill. US metro areas would kill for an institution like that.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools