Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal
I know there is the argument allowing 4 plexes everywhere will mean we don't need evil 20 story condos but I think those two phenomenon are largely separate. To be clear I am not against 4 plexes everywhere. It's a no brainer at this point. I am just saying it does change the character of neighbourhoods. We have to pay the price at this point for the greater good but those already in the housing market nearing retirement and looking to walk safely in their neighbourhood can't be faulted for speaking against change.
|
I don't think that has as much to do with it as you think. I agree that concerns about attracting the riff raff are commonly cited when arguing against infill, but I think that's mostly a veil for some of the reasons you mentioned earlier. One of them is simply an aversion to change.
You could propose a fourplex with reasonable height, subdued colour/materials that complement the neighbourhood, and occupy them with quiet, single professionals or young families and neighbours would still oppose it on them on the basis they they simply preferred looking at whatever used to be there, even if it was an empty overgrown lot or a mildly-maintained vacant property.
Another reason is people's disdain for developers, as a fourplex with modern materials and finishes appears to many as a beacon of corporate greed and developer profits, regardless of the benefit of added housing supply.
Basically, the majority of opposition towards changes to zoning policy stems from the mere fact that many older folks with plenty of free time and who are active in community affairs feel like they
should oppose policies that favour density and so they do so. This is nothing new (the term NIMBY been around for ages) and wasn't more than a mild annoyance until now, as we've reached a tipping point in the housing crisis and the dire need for supply has eclipsed the luxury of being able to control what happens outside of one's property limits.
Threaded Mode