Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomer
Interesting stats - looks like Victoria has the second lowest share of SFH at 6.36%, then Vancouver at 7.86%.
I tend to agree with the posters who talk about increasing densification being a good thing - or perhaps you're just making observations and withholding judgement. Yes we could expand on greenfields and sprawl to make housing more affordable but isn't that short term thinking and baking in long term infrastructure, transportation, environmental and social costs for generations ahead.. I mean, sure it's working now in some prairie and other cities but they also have the cheap and easier land to develop whereas others have limited land or the land that is available is costly in terms of purchase price and development costs. Blasting away mountain sides for example as in Victoria's western suburbs.
|
There's a U-shaped curve where increased density ends up being counterproductive, and we've probably hit that in a lot of the recent mega developments in Toronto (and Vancouver). A lot of the constraints on land we have are due to policy choices, particularly in Ontario. There's been a lot of virtuous "won't someone think of the children" forward thinking that's contributed to these types of decisions, but no one seems to have ever considered to ask the younger generation (who overwhelmingly prefer ground level homes with yards) what they want.
Threaded Mode