Quote:
Originally Posted by King&James
The same people will complain about whatever downscaled version is created this round. Horizon should have stuck to their guns and pushed ahead regardless. Also if the variance was 1800 units vs 1000 for adding a lane to an overpass, that is a lot of incremental re-occurring revenue to pay for it. Honestly if the City didn't want that much density, it should not have created a (or left in place), zoning that allowed unlimited height etc. Horizon could play it smart by hitting the city up for a density transfer to a key site in perhaps a more desirable area (say an LRT stop).
|
People look at the number of units and assume it means THAT MANY additional cars on "their" roads, all the live-long day. It doesn't. It means there will be additional vehicles at certain times of day, but road capacities are much greater than people assume.
North Service Rd. may get busy at times, but does it get congested? I guess when you expect few other vehicles to be on it (and any time I've driven that road, there are few other vehicles) any increase will be frightening.
I totally agree with your last point -- a trade-off for allowing more on another site, by building less on this one, makes a whole lotta sense.
Threaded Mode