Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Translation: a more gradual change (e.g. 4 floors to 10-20, then 30-40, over several decades) may have resulted in a reduced historic district, or none at all. Rapid progress led to equally-rapid kneejerk preservationism - something the entire metro may want to consider, going forward.
Some, not many. Note again that the Sperling Elementary area is a bit more SkyTrain-adjacent than Station Creek, but none of that’s up for rezoning.
Let's be real, all of NYC is unaffordable; East Village is actually cheaper than Brooklyn.
We’re talking past each other. Far as I’m concerned, you want to cross that bridge sooner, NIMBYs want it crossed later; I want it crossed when we get there, no sooner, no later. Again, it's like the viewcones - rezoning six and a half blocks is hardly going to make the same dent in overall supply that rezoning two-thirds of the city would (and is very likely going to splinter the urbanist base).
Also bear in mind that unless efforts are made to keep the types of commercial/retail units that attract hipster/indie venues - in which case you’re basically keeping most of the building - there’s a 90% chance the breweries, butchers and art studios turn into Starbucks and Lululemon with a few sushi places thrown in; I'd consider that a net loss for every generation. |
I dunno how smart it would be to redevelop parcels so soon rather than building in 1 fell swoop. Seems kind of wasteful, and you lock into lower density earlier on.
Buildings are usually assumed to last 50 years (if managed well) before needing demolishment or major renovations.
Also note that Sperling Elementary is a 12 min walk from the station because it's
on top of a slope.
Humans are not birds.
Also, the industrial lots were de-zoned from industrial long before Metro Vancouver started preserving industry, so I guess Burnaby just decided they may as well build condos there rather than keeping them industrial.
They're still rezoning half of the low-density housing around Sperling.
That's not really "Grand Bargain"- there could be improvements, but it's still not horrible, and the SFHs preserved are the ones more difficult to get to anyways.
Well, TBF, if you add Greenwich Village, they're in the same rough area. Also, there's a ton of social housing in East Village.
It's more the prices kind of even out regardless of how dense the area is overall, and densifying the East Village and Greenwich would decrease the base minimum and maximum price across the entire area (in theory.)
OK, fair enough.
I'm not sure how well the industrial-office lots in Mt. Pleasant and the Flats could end up replacing them though- though that was part of the intention of their plans.
Threaded Mode