Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
Ok, I had to respond to this. First intensification is not a pipe dream. Both the Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP and the Bridges ARP are very recent documents. The Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP was passed in what, 2009? And the Bridges document is only a few years older than that. Truth is, these things take time.
The reason why almost no inner city growth has occurred in the last 20 years is because it was essentially illegal. Every ARP in the city basically said the purpose of the ARP was to maintain the existing low density character of the community. This doesn't make land use redesignations to higher density easy. So when you ask yourself why there has not been growth in the inner city, don't look to the market, look to the regulation.
The Beltline is a great counter example. Since 2003, when the community basically said "Build things here" and "Density is good" it has had incredible growth. People like Wooster can tell you how much ridiculous amount of activity was happening in a very short period of time. People want to live in the inner city, developers are more than able to buy up existing property and replace it with higher density housing. It isn't hard. As long as you let them. But if you drag them through the mud for several years, keep changing your mind, and ultimately end up fighting them, they will leave (I am looking at you Hillhurst/Sunnyside).
Long story short- intensification is entirely possible. In fact, Centre Street is an almost ideal place for it. Nothing but single family homes, in a gridded street pattern. That makes land assembly and demolition incredibly easy. Developers would be all over being able to buy 6 houses, tear them down and put up a 60 unit, 5 storey building. The thing is, they're not allowed to.
|
Should get rid of those overly restrictive ARP's in places like Sunnyside, and see what happens. My personal preference as an engineer would be to put in a subway, but if it is limited by economics of not being able to grow up, then it's a much harder case compared to Nose Creek alignment which has less issues with trying to assemble say a 6 house land package, and can be built from a masterplanned perspective instead.
I get that there is a desire for this kind of neighbourhood, but I also think there is a desire to stay in that neighbourhood. Without flux, in and out, one can't develop. If one looks at some of the areas that were built up recently, a lot of that growth happened precisely because of the vacated house and outward migration that had occurred at one time. This takes time...
Threaded Mode