[Mille Sabords]

Things are not perfect, I agree. Developing on the Greenbelt now would probably end up with more suburban wasteland, I agree. Lots of infill in mature neighbourhoods introduce suburban monstrosities that disfigure charming streetscapes, I agree.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a bigger picture when planning.

The proper way to intensify residential neighbourhoods is to urbanize their fabric. Much of the piecemeal infill we see now is inflicting extra distortions, although it is technically intensification. Although sometimes, small-scale infill projects hit the right note. The one in New Edinburgh by Larco that proposes to replace a corner-lot bungalow with 6 townhouses close to the street with rear lane parking is one of them. A project like that densifies a residential neighbourhood with a human-scaled form and design that actually improve the street.

High density living is not what everyone wants, I agree. But some people DO want it. Their choice shouldn't be restricted. And those who do want that choice will look for their choice in high-density areas. Makes sense. So, the areas that are already vibrant and mixed-use, ARE the logical candidates for intensification.

It's also too simplistic to describe what the city said in their white paper as "pave it all over". If you read it, as I did, they're actually quite careful. Most of the Greenbelt won't change. The Greenbelt will be preserved. It will always be there. It will be smaller and have a different shape, but it will stay.

What they are saying, and I agree, is that out of all the various types of lands on the Greenbelt, let's look at the more marginal ones as places to grow instead of taking up similar types of land further out.