Comment 111104

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted April 27, 2015 at 07:26:52 in reply to Comment 111096

I don't get it.

You definitely don't get it.

I don't know how much clearer it can be explained than it already has been. Some people are happy living in higher density, closer to amenities, with a smaller footprint. Those people tend to congregate in or near downtowns.

Others tend to want a bit more space, white picket fence, parking for two or more cars, et cetera. Those people trend toward suburbs. Urban levels of service, by the very nature of lower density, are less achievable. It's the whole point of the suburb.

Others still, tend to want a lot more space, bonfires, fields to plant, et cetera. Those people trend toward exurbs and rural. Suburban and urban levels of service, by the very nature of countryside, are less achievable. It's the whole point of the exurb/countryside.

Each is a different built form, each has different cost inputs and footprints, and each, well done, can thrive. By building the higher density efficiently, the tax base increases, the whole city has a stronger "spinal chord", and suburbs get to have their potholes filled too.

What it takes is a little bit of consensus, a little bit of view of the whole, and a little more embracing of diversity instead of dichotomous, all-or-none thinking.

The Burger Shack in Flamborough cannot sustain an LRT, or a GO station, will be a little bit farther from a fire station and police station, which is the point. That does not mean denser neighborhoods should not have it. I don't know how to ELI5 it any better.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-04-27 07:58:48

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds