Comment 89496

By j (registered) | Posted June 12, 2013 at 09:30:07 in reply to Comment 89490

You're right that shadows are a small concern, but look at the development at Aberdeen and Dundurn and what they've done to the balconies of the building to the south. You'd have to be pretty committed to total private property rights to believe that's not a travesty.

Your parking example only works if there is no street parking available. If all street parking had to be paid for then yes you could get rid of the minimums, which I'd get behind.

Planning is about accommodation between old and new neighbours, not just creating services for property owners. If neighbours' property values all plummet as a result of a project then tax rates go down and the net city take is smaller. Beyond that, the goal is not simply to intensify at all costs. You could do that China style by simply moving people around. Height restrictions and setbacks ensure a level of accommodation, meeting both prior owner expectations and new owner rights.

The problem with making it an issue of simply owner rights and free choice is that the new owners will do exactly the same nimby thing once the next development is proposed. Right wing enclaves do nimbyism even worse than urbanists. Every owner claims rights over externalities that are not well defined.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools