Comment 78867

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted June 23, 2012 at 03:30:19 in reply to Comment 78812

  1. No, because the councilors who may have that vision are easily shouted down by the suburban Councillors. The plan that is needed to stop the urban boundary from expanding even an inch further and subsidizing downtown density (like 10 story or greater projects) and focus on redistributing social services throughout the city instead of clustering them in the core.

  2. You want downsizing boomers and young working professionals there. However both are scared away by the rampant presence of low income earners and a swath of people who are utilizing the social safety net to it's fullest, because those social services are clustered in the core instead of fairly distributed throughout the city. Also property values that are overinflated in the core, simply by merit of being in a city core.

  3. Only doable if you can attract a large amount of people with money to live in the core (IE: Downsizing boomers and young professionals). People from outside the core have these services within closer distance to them without paying for parking, bus fare or utilizing large amounts of time with other methods. Why shop at the Denninger's in Jackson square when there is one on the mountain and I live on the mountain?

  4. See answer 3. There is already facilities that exist, closer to these locations. The only draw is unique events or cultural institutions, which the core lacks the proper infrastructure and tenants to attract. A lack of an NHL team for Copps which is too large a venue for an AHL/OHL franchise and incredibly aged and ugly convention center and Hamilton Place whose investment potential is limited without more density or a high degree of undesirable subsidy.

  5. It's no secret, large chains typically target areas where they have either A) High population density to maximize potential customers by foot/public transit or B) Large malls/box developments that offer ample free parking and major arterial roads to maximize people getting to their business. Downtown lacks sufficient density and cannot offer free parking or large developments due to it's structure or without bulldozing entire blocks (at great cost).

  6. Overvaluation and speculation. As stated, property values downtown are higher based solely on the merit of "being downtown" thus owners want full value for property that isn't appealing enough to really warrant it's listed worth. Thus "idling" the property until it is sold is seen as a way to lower tax costs and maintenance of keeping it in working rentable order until a buyer comes along. Speculation is another reason we can't get rid of these pay parking lots and build density. The land could be worth a lot more if developed, but once again, they want more value based on it's potential worth vs it's current worth. Also red tape is rampant for higher density development in the city vs lower density sprawl, as is getting a demolition permit for buildings of little historical worth, but are simply old. This is another reason why the costs for suburban expansion must become drastically higher and urban development subsidized.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2012-06-23 03:39:36

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds