Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
when you rail against highway development as fervently as many here have--it is bordering on hypocritical when you then begin to dictate the sorts of developments that are going to go onto newly serviced land.
|
I don't rail against development along existing highways. I rail against new highways being built when we are already choking on highways in Southern Ontario. I also rail against inappropriate development along highways, i.e. slapping a one level retail economy-sinkhole on a site much better suited to office or industrial economy-drivers.
I look at it this way:
Retail:
-Takes money in from neighbouring communities when they shop there
-gives back to community in low paying part time jobs
-gives back to community in taxes
-gives most of the profit to head office in another city or country, where head office employees make better salaries over longer periods and feed their own local economy
Commercial (office):
-takes money from customers over a large area, not just locally
-gives back to community in high paying long term jobs
-gives back to community in taxes
-accepts the profit made in a wide area and uses it to feed the local economy (through the salaries and taxes mentioned)
Commercial (industrial/manufacturing)
-takes from community in an environmental fashion (creating pollution etc)
-gives back to community in high paying long term jobs
-gives back to community in taxes
-accepts the profit made in a wide area and uses it to feed the local economy (through the salaries and taxes mentioned)
Which would you rather have? why are we switching commercial land to retail when it's clearly a net loser? Why don't we focus our energies on attracting high tech investment? Other cities much uglier than ours have made a successful run at that idea. Are we even trying? We need to be attracting more head offices of retail chains and fewer retail outlets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
I believe that highway development is positive and necessary. You on the other hand "know that pure highway-based development is a dead end road"
|
You are misreading my point. By "pure", I mean "only", or "solely" or even "primarily". I am talking about putting all your eggs in one basket. I am referring to basing your economy ONLY on highway-based development. I think all of us inherently know that this type of development is dead end, especially if it's the only thing you have. It's not just opinion: rising oil prices have made it a reality. So my point is that we need to have a mix of development, including transit oriented development, walkable communities (mixed use zoning), rebuilding our rail systems -- public investment in rail is pathetically minuscule compared to investment in roads, etc.
Take a look at mississauga or brampton. They have built all of their economy around building more roads, highways and developing along them. What happens to these "cities" when oil reaches the tipping point where trucking companies are no longer profitable and people can't afford to drive everywhere? Even if you do not agree with the concept of long term irreversible oil depletion and rising prices... even if you think this oil price issue is simply going to be a "blip" like in the seventies... you have to see that the past 50 years of solely investing in highway oriented development is going to severely bite these places in the ass for the duration of the "blip". Am I really as closed minded and 'out there' as you think? Even if we have a 5 year blip causing a severe crunch on highway oriented development, it's going to take decades to recover. We need to be building and maintaining as many "baskets" as we can. Our eggs are depending on it ;-)