Quote:
Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce
My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential.
|
I agree that this is the likeliest outcome. I simply don't trust the City when they say there will be no residential. Even if I believed all of the proponents were saying this in good faith, I think it's highly likely that the plan will change when it fails to be the wild attraction they assume it will be.
I don't have, let's say, a strong proclivity for environmentalism. I don't share your predictions for the scarcity of oil in the future- I see the new technologies being employed in the U.S. and elsewhere for extraction, and new technologies that make more efficient use possible, and I don't think $500 oil is likely in the coming years. But what ScreamingViking said about companies' preference for greenfield sites is important. Greenfield sites are by definition finite. Greenfield locations with good proximity to labour and consumers even moreso. Putting employment nodes ever-further out in to the countryside promotes residential sprawl, even if they say that this particular project won't include residential components.
Like ScreamingViking said, there is lots of industrial land in the north end. We can see with our own eyes that it is not being used as it once was. It will need lots of remediation, but how do the costs compare to servicing locations like the airport? My personal guess (if anyone knows better, please enlighten me) is that areas like the north end industrial areas are unattractive because remediation tends to be a cost borne by property owners, and greenfields are attractive because servicing new development lands tends to be a cost borne by us, the taxpayers. I can't see a lot of other reason for the preference, as existing industrial areas are close to where labour is already located, and close to well-developed transportation routes.