View Single Post
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2019, 1:07 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
It's great to see a balanced, objective post like this. All too often it's sprawl = bad, infill = good. I think there's some middle ground to be had, and a city needs both types of development to grow and meet the needs of residents.
Balance is important, but my impression is that the scales are tipped wildly in favour of suburban greenfield development.

Look at the new subdivisions... developers tend to get what they want. They draw up the plans, they get to build what is most profitable, and the City does its best to support that even if it means having to pay for costly road extensions (Bishop Grandin east) or widenings (Route 90) and other associated infrastructure.

By contrast, if you want to do something that involves infill, even a modest lot split or small condo building, you are met with a wall of nimby resistance that most councillors are happy to join in on. Yes, the policy documents may all support the concept of infill, increased density, mixed uses, etc., but in practice it triggers resistance at every turn.

Downtown is a bit of a different story, there is not the same kind of nimby pressure there. But downtown is just one neighbourhood in the grand scheme of things. Councillors like Mayes erroneously frame it as downtown vs. suburbs, but downtown is not the problem. You can build big if you want to there. The real battleground is older inner suburbs that should be rightfully becoming denser, more urban environments but residents, abetted by councillors, are intent on keeping the status quo even though doing so is absurd in a metro area that is close to reaching the million mark in population. Areas like Old St. B, Crescentwood, Norwood, Wolseley, etc. should be growing up and becoming home to more people.
Reply With Quote