Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
Waverley and McGillivray also have what are essentially service roads (Buffalo Pl, Gamble Pl, etc.)... Not sure why city planners always get the bad rap for these types of issues though.
|
Because people think planners work in a vacuum.
The misconception is that planners simply say "we'll put a road here" and that's the end of the story. Unfortunately , what tends to happen more often than not is that some stuffed shirt somewhere decides that the land that was reserved for one thing or another could be put to much better use as a field to showcase a for-sale sign.
An example would be Bishop Grandin at Dakota. For years the city hung on to the land around the intersection because the plan was to put a grade separation in place. Then some putz decided that since the overpass was at least twenty years away , it made more sense to sell the land to a developer whose development would then lock up the land for the next fifty years or whatever. While we could argue that the planning department gave the green light to the sale , we also have to remember that they don't necessarily get that option.
I don't really know exactly what transpired in the example cited. No clue obviously. I do know that if the idea was to save room for an interchange then any cheaper versions of it sailed with the rest of the ship.
Threaded Mode