Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

And the latest community meeting on Monday, clearly showed that anger is still simmering. And expanding away from the immediate surround of Lansdowne, as residents of Lakeview by Dows Lake were much in evidence to voice their concerns that their little street will be used to move hundreds of shuttle buses from Bronson to the Q.E. Driveway on game days.

But again, the response from the City and OSMUG was "too bad, that's the way it is."

I was at the meeting, and that was not the response at all. The Councillor very clearly explained that he is weighing competing interests - the interest of the residents of that street vs. the broader interest of keeping the shuttle route as direct as possible to entice people out of their cars. He and the City (OSEG did not take a position) may have reached a conclusion that the community does not like, but it was a considered position. This refrain that the City isn't listening is getting a bit tiresome.

I'm not sure how I feel about that one - I see both sides, and frankly find the concern about school buses running for a few hours 10 times a year to be a bit overblown. I do think that the noise on that issue is taking away from other, more important items. In particular, the community should be focusing on getting the Clegg-Fifth footbridge advanced, and the free and improved transit service on Bank. Those are items that would really make a difference on a day to day basis.

[phil235]

Incidentally, I found the Councillor wrong-headed on the free transit on Bank St. issue. He suggested that it might encourage people who would normally walk to Lansdowne to hop on the bus, which makes the bus crowded. Maybe, but what it would really do is extend the walking range of Lansdowne to anyone within walking distance of any point on Bank St. That would certainly draw more people to transit.

If the service gets too popular, increase the service and priority measures.

[alecz_dad]

Well, for one, local cycling advocate and VP of Citizens for Safe Cycling, Alex de Vries, has written extensively about both his desire to see proper cycling infrastructure provided at Lansdowne, but also his skepticism about the extremely optimistic presumed level of cycle use amongst Lansdowne visitors, that the development proponents have used as part of their justification for the reduced number of onsite parking spaces, despite the many-fold increase in the density and intensity of the uses on the site.

His latest post compares the data that was collected in 2012 as a baseline, with the anticipated levels modal shares for private vehicles, transit, walking, cycling, etc., and finds there are significant disparities.


So, that would require a 4-fold increase in the share of sustainable transportation, compared with what was observed.


Here's the break-down from the observed modal share in March 2012.


The projections show a 3-fold increase in the number of people walking to Lansdowne. However, it's also not clear to me whether people who park on surrounding streets and then walk to the stadium would count as "walking." If that's the case, then this does little to improve the sustainability of the scheme, or to reduce the impact on surrounding neighbourhoods.

He states: "Here’s a back of the napkin calculation: in March 2012 there were about 2400 cars and 2200 on-site spots. The new plan is for 2760 cars, but with only 1000 on-site spots. Where will the rest go? They will wander the streets, searching for parking spaces, making it less desirable to bike or walk."

And I would further point out that it makes life much more unpleasant for neighbouring residents, having a constant churn of drivers looking for parking on residential streets.

It was in recognition of the negative impact of this that the City created the by-law that banned all street parking (other than for those with residential permits) during the Ex on streets surrounding Lansdowne. That was for only 10 days. The Lansdowne scheme means that potentially there will be a churn of people looking for parking 18hrs a day/7days a week/365days a year.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

As determined by whom?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Thank you for giving me that one YOWetal.

The assertion of the City and OSMUG has been that the special transportation measures they have planned for large events, and promotion of transportation demand management to reduce the number of people coming in their private vehicles for events and day-to-day, will mean that the onsite parking will be sufficient.

I think it will be interesting to see what the City's response might be to reducing existing 3-hr parking times on streets surrounding Lansdowne. I suspect they know the onsite parking will be insufficient and are relying on surrounding streets to be able to pick up the slack. But if the time limits are reduced to 1 hour, that will effectively make it impossible for movie-goers, football fans, or shoppers or diners planning to do anything more that a quick pickup, thus requiring them to either use the paid parking, or go to another shopping centre that has free parking.

So, it would make a lie of their claims that the intensity of facilities planned for Lansdowne can be accommodated without harmful effects on the existing community. Not that they care.

Well a broken clock still right twice a day. Seriously though, to my surprise I have seen some logic in a few of your recent posts. I for one would be happy to hear any forward looking suggestions you and the rest of the anti-Lansdowne have to make. But, re-litigating the whole project is not helpful. Nor is hoping for failure.

While I have some sympathy for those living through the construction noise those on Holmwood will more than make up for when their property values skyrocket after the project is finished. Holmwood used to be one of the shabbier parts of the Glebe and the area is now going to be one of the most desirable areas in the city.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Incidentally, I found the Councillor wrong-headed on the free transit on Bank St. issue. He suggested that it might encourage people who would normally walk to Lansdowne to hop on the bus, which makes the bus crowded. Maybe, but what it would really do is extend the walking range of Lansdowne to anyone within walking distance of any point on Bank St. That would certainly draw more people to transit.

If the service gets too popular, increase the service and priority measures.

It will make the ride a lot slower because as you get closer those who were in the process of walking will jump on the free bus to go the last few blocks.

I don't see what benefit offering free transit to an event that will already have a high demand for public transit. It is unlikely anyone will stop driving from Kanata or Orleans because the bus is free.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Well, for one, local cycling advocate and VP of Citizens for Safe Cycling, Alex de Vries,...

No doubt a great guy, but in what way is he any sort of authority on the matter? His bio states that he's actually a software architect. His own post acknowledges that he uses inaccurate but "best available" numbers and makes reference to a napkin calculation.

Not at all a criticism against him, since he clearly took some time to look into it. But how does one guy with a blog make it "obvious" that there is "inadequate parking, transit and road capacity to accomodate all the new users on a daily basis"?

You remind me of when John Martin would say that he didn't care much for experts. Except that relying on non-experts certainly comes with its own set of dangers, doesn't it? Even if what they say sounds really good compared against what you want to hear.

If Devries had come to a different conclusion, would you accept it as easily?

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

So your neighbours can't afford to move and yet they live in the Glebe? They do realize that the Glebe is one of the highest priced areas in the city and experiences pretty much continuous annual growth, right? So it's unlikely that they can't afford to move. I'm sure they could move, they just don't want to move. But they've chosen to stay and deal with a few years of construction, which will ultimately increase the values of the surrounding homes (not that the Glebe has had issues with property values). Every choice has advantages and disadvantages, the noise is just part of the small disadvantages.

I think that people have an unrealistic sense of how wealthy Glebe residents are. There are quite a few of us who have modest incomes, have lived in the neighbourhood for a long time, and likely could not afford to buy elsewhere where they could have the same lifestyle. And we already have made choices and sacrifices to live in a more sustainable community, accepting smaller houses, fewer municipal facilities, and higher taxes. Yet we keep being expected to give more. So, we resist.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

But here is what I don't understand from your sob story of construction disturbances - unless they kept Lansdowne as-is (which was a decrepit, eye-sore - even the anti-Lansdowne development crowd agreed that something had to be done with it) then there was going to be construction one way or another. So whether it was Minto building condos and a stadium or someone else building lord knows what, there would be noise coming from that site. This is just part of living in a central and desirable area.

I think that if we felt that the development had been planned with due consideration given to the concerns of the existing residents, and that the process had not seemed so obviously pre-ordained and impervious to any meaningful input from the people who will be most directly affected by the scheme, there would have been much less resistance to the plan, because it would have been "our" plan too, instead of just a plan for the benefit of the greater good.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

If you and your neighbours truly despise having cars legally parked out from of your home on the street and you hate seeing any changes to your neighbourhood (pardon me, hate seeing any changes to your neighbourhood that you didn't have 100% input), then perhaps the Glebe isn't the right neighbourhood for you. In fact, there would be few areas in the city that would be a good fit for you since Ottawa is a growing city and there are new housing and other types of developments happening in all corners of the city.

The precedent on parking was already set when the City agreed to have a bylaw that significantly restricted itinerant parking on residential streets during the Ex, in recognition of the disruption that having hundreds of vehicles per day circling Lansdowne in search of street parking. I believe Coun. Watson supported such measures. But I guess that's when he had to get support from Glebe residents to get re-elected.

Anyway, the City's standard process is that residents can seek changes to the parking rules on their street simply by petitioning the City, as has been the case in areas around the hospitals and the [no-name] Baseball Stadium.

I'll be curious to see if residents do petition to significantly restrict parking on streets surrounding Lansdowne, whether the City will respect it's previous practices, or whether it will suddenly discover that it doesn't apply when it's next door to its pet project (just as they did when they de-parkified Sylvia Holden Park just long enough to decree it was OK to rip it up, then retroactively change all the other unsanctioned parks into parks, once they were done with SHP).

100% input? Ha! Having more than a few percent influence -- and that only because the community association and a bunch of individuals banded together to threaten to take the scheme to the OMB -- would have been nice.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It will make the ride a lot slower because as you get closer those who were in the process of walking will jump on the free bus to go the last few blocks.

I don't see what benefit offering free transit to an event that will already have a high demand for public transit. It is unlikely anyone will stop driving from Kanata or Orleans because the bus is free.

The proposal for free transit isn't related to events. It is for day-to-day usage. Events already have the cost of a transit ticket included in the ticket price.

The advantage of free service is that it would compare favourably to driving, even if it takes slightly longer. The idea is that someone in West Centretown would be much more likely to walk to Bank and take the bus if it was free. Likewise, someone working downtown would be more likely to leave their car parked and hop on the bus to Lansdowne rather than driving down. The other advantage is that it helps all of the retailers along Bank, not just those in Lansdowne park.

[alecz_dad]

Umm, it's not 9 nights. Don't forget:
* the 67s games
* the Fury games
* the various concerts and other events to be programmed in.

And on a 365 days a year basis:
* thousands of cinema-goers, turning over every 2 hours
* thousands more customers of stores, bars and restaurants
* hundreds of employees of said cinema, stores, bars and restaurants
* hundreds of office workers
* etc.

I don't think I'm the one being indecent or selfish. Plunking that much down amidst a mature neighbourhood, and expecting residents to just roll over and say it's all just peachy? That's indecent.

Originally Posted by EdFromOttawa

Why on earth can't you just be a decent human being and let people park on your streets for 9 nights of the year?

This is a ridiculous demonstration of how selfish people can be. Get out of Ottawa.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I think that if we felt that the development had been planned with due consideration given to the concerns of the existing residents, and that the process had not seemed so obviously pre-ordained and impervious to any meaningful input from the people who will be most directly affected by the scheme, there would have been much less resistance to the plan, because it would have been "our" plan too, instead of just a plan for the benefit of the greater good.

...

100% input? Ha! Having more than a few percent influence -- and that only because the community association and a bunch of individuals banded together to threaten to take the scheme to the OMB -- would have been nice.

There has always been opposition to any addition to Lansdowne Park, going back to the addition of the upper deck on the south side of the stadium. You have a very difficult argument to make to convince anyone that anything other than giving full authority to those in opposition would have led down a more peaceful path. History does not support your position at all.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Within the city of Ottawa, you don't own the street in front of your home, you don't own the sidewalk in front of your home, heck, in most cases, you don't own the first 3'-4' feet of your lawn- it's owned by the city. So what if someone is parked there for a few hours on a week night or weekend?

Yes, the Mayor has used the same line on me about not owning the street; and I'm aware of the not owning the first few feet from the sidewalk. Yet that doesn't stop people from decorating and taking concern for this area. The City expects us to maintain it.

My concern is not so much the several cars parked (although having all the spots on the street taken by Lansdowne visitors will be very difficult for people who have to use a street permit, or for guests who might be visiting residents on the street).
Of greater concern are the dozen others who will be circling around, looking in vain for a free parking spot. And the Montreal fans who will inevitably park illegally on the other side of the street every time the Alouettes are in town, as they did before.)
Would you like to live in a parking lot?

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I wonder if these people, like Alecs Dad, write letters to mother nature for snowing too much and creating large snowbanks in front of their homes too.

Nope, Mother Nature's off the hook. But I will be using the GCA's reporting system to let the City know when their inadequate snow clearing and removal has caused my street to narrow too much and the banks become too high to safely pass along it.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Yes, the Mayor has used the same line on me about not owning the street; and I'm aware of the not owning the first few feet from the sidewalk. Yet that doesn't stop people from decorating and taking concern for this area. The City expects us to maintain it.

My concern is not so much the several cars parked (although having all the spots on the street taken by Lansdowne visitors will be very difficult for people who have to use a street permit, or for guests who might be visiting residents on the street).

Of greater concern are the dozen others who will be circling around, looking in vain for a free parking spot. And the Montreal fans who will inevitably park illegally on the other side of the street every time the Alouettes are in town, as they did before.)

Would you like to live in a parking lot?

Personally, no. So when I chose a place to live, I chose one that had little potential to turn into a parking lot.

You can't have everything here. You can not make it a place for the entire city to enjoy, then complain when the entire city shows up.

So what is your solution? Are you suggesting that it be for the neighborhood only? Does that seem right to you?

If not, how do you make it a place that used to be little more than parking into something that for the entire city to enjoy, yet without increasing traffic dramatically?

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well a broken clock still right twice a day. Seriously though, to my surprise I have seen some logic in a few of your recent posts. I for one would be happy to hear any forward looking suggestions you and the rest of the anti-Lansdowne have to make. But, re-litigating the whole project is not helpful. Nor is hoping for failure.

Although I have come to this forum as a clear opponent to this scheme and the way it was brought about, despite the claims of some other posters, I have always aspired for my posts to be thoughtful and coherent (to lesser and greater degrees, I'll concede).

At the latest meeting on Monday the Glebe Community Association outlined 20 suggestions it had to mitigate the impact of Lansdowne on the neighbouring community, but so far the City has accepted only 2, and seems unlikely to support many more.

The atmosphere of the meeting was -- even from those like the community associations and BIA, who were more directly engaged in working with the Lansdowne proponents -- one of anger and resignation. That having already had their cake, the City and OSMUG are not especially interested in not eating it all too.

Don't worry, there won't likely be any more litigation; the kitty is empty. But as yet more negatives are introduced, such as the use of Lakeview Terrace as a shortcut for hundreds of shuttle buses during larger events, it's understandable why even reasonable residents are beginning to hope for Lansdowne to fail, and perhaps to try to take actions to bring on its failure.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

While I have some sympathy for those living through the construction noise those on Holmwood will more than make up for when their property values skyrocket after the project is finished. Holmwood used to be one of the shabbier parts of the Glebe and the area is now going to be one of the most desirable areas in the city.

I think the shabby part your are referring to is a couple of rental rows midway between Bank and Adelaide. But in general, I would say that a closer look at the properties along Holmwood show that the owners have been investing time and money in maintaining and improving their properties.

However, what I have seen happening on my street -- Adelaide, around the corner -- (only since the Lansdowne development began) is a hollowing out, as people decide that suffering though years of construction and future uncertainty, means that several households have decided they would rather leave than enlarge or renovate their properties.

The possibility of a disproportionately great increase in property values does me no good unless I plan to move. Otherwise, it just jacks up my already excessive property taxes, in relation to the value of the municipal services that I receive.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

But as yet more negatives are introduced, such as the use of Lakeview Terrace as a shortcut for hundreds of shuttle buses during larger events, it's understandable why even reasonable residents are beginning to hope for Lansdowne to fail, and perhaps to try to take actions to bring on its failure.

Nope.

In my experience, the people hoping for Lansdowne to fail are the same people who have always been hoping for Lansdowne to fail. Those involved in the committees (such as Brian Mitchell), as well as the BIA, have made it very clear that the success of the project is in everyone's interest. The hope of failure is more of an emotional response than a rationale one, and it makes no sense to me. What do they expect would happen - the buildings would crumble and return to nature? Not likely.

This "civil disobedience" angle amuses me. When a questioner raised the spectre of street blockages etc., there was a decided uneasiness in the room. Civil disobedience of that nature is appropriate for issues that go to basic human rights - unjust imprisonment, homelessness etc. The possibility of some school buses going down your street for a few hours on some Saturdays in the summer does not exactly belong in that category.

[JackBauer24]

I didn't say or assume you or your neighbour were wealthy because you live in the Glebe. But an argument could be made that on average, most Glebites are wealthier than the average Orleans or Riverside South resident (of course, there are exceptions). But if your neighbour does lives in the Glebe and doesn't earn the largest of incomes, he's still sitting on a nice piece of property he could sell, turn a profit and relocate elsewhere and cut his living expenses. So again, I'm having trouble understanding how he can't "afford to move"? I think he's simply unwilling to move and change his lifestyle, which is his choice. But like I said before, there are advantages and disadvantages that come with every choice.

As for the sacrifices Glebites had to make, how is accepting smaller houses one of them?? Did the city come by and literally cut your house in half? Did they force you to trim back a couple of bedrooms? I think what you're referring to are the sub-divided lots where people have built higher density homes (duplexes, multiplexes, condos, etc...). Again, this is what happens to desirable neighbourhoods - and in the big picture, this demand to be in the Glebe that's causing these sub-divided lots, is the same demand that will drive houses prices up.

Now regarding the process to approve Lansdowne, this dead horse has been beaten several times over (I fear someone may call the Humane Society for animal abuse) - there was an opportunity for anyone to present a viable solution for Lansdowne, and OSEGs plan was the best to work with. The City did take the local community into consideration (even though you think otherwise) but since this is a city development and not a Glebe development the city weighed the city-wide benefits heavier than the Glebe-wide benefits.

Now with regards to parking and the city "respecting their practices", are you seriously comparing the neighbourhood around the former JetForm baseball stadium to the Glebe?? If you can't understand that there are other factors that are unique to the Glebe that would interfere with the city accepting a petition to reduce, restrict or eliminate street parking in the Glebe, than there is no use in continuing this conversation. You can't compare apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I think that people have an unrealistic sense of how wealthy Glebe residents are. There are quite a few of us who have modest incomes, have lived in the neighbourhood for a long time, and likely could not afford to buy elsewhere where they could have the same lifestyle. And we already have made choices and sacrifices to live in a more sustainable community, accepting smaller houses, fewer municipal facilities, and higher taxes. Yet we keep being expected to give more. So, we resist.



I think that if we felt that the development had been planned with due consideration given to the concerns of the existing residents, and that the process had not seemed so obviously pre-ordained and impervious to any meaningful input from the people who will be most directly affected by the scheme, there would have been much less resistance to the plan, because it would have been "our" plan too, instead of just a plan for the benefit of the greater good.



The precedent on parking was already set when the City agreed to have a bylaw that significantly restricted itinerant parking on residential streets during the Ex, in recognition of the disruption that having hundreds of vehicles per day circling Lansdowne in search of street parking. I believe Coun. Watson supported such measures. But I guess that's when he had to get support from Glebe residents to get re-elected.

Anyway, the City's standard process is that residents can seek changes to the parking rules on their street simply by petitioning the City, as has been the case in areas around the hospitals and the [no-name] Baseball Stadium.

I'll be curious to see if residents do petition to significantly restrict parking on streets surrounding Lansdowne, whether the City will respect it's previous practices, or whether it will suddenly discover that it doesn't apply when it's next door to its pet project (just as they did when they de-parkified Sylvia Holden Park just long enough to decree it was OK to rip it up, then retroactively change all the other unsanctioned parks into parks, once they were done with SHP).

100% input? Ha! Having more than a few percent influence -- and that only because the community association and a bunch of individuals banded together to threaten to take the scheme to the OMB -- would have been nice.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

The proposal for free transit isn't related to events. It is for day-to-day usage. Events already have the cost of a transit ticket included in the ticket price.

The advantage of free service is that it would compare favourably to driving, even if it takes slightly longer. The idea is that someone in West Centretown would be much more likely to walk to Bank and take the bus if it was free. Likewise, someone working downtown would be more likely to leave their car parked and hop on the bus to Lansdowne rather than driving down. The other advantage is that it helps all of the retailers along Bank, not just those in Lansdowne park.

I was talking about the included in the ticket price idea that I know is planned. I think that even that is a useless endeavor designed to try and placate people like alecz. The price of the bus for a one time trip is not a key factor for many people who have another choice.

Making the bus on Bank St free all the time would be expensive and I really doubt someone who has a car in west Centretown heading to dinner and a movie is going to say oh now we don't have to pay $2.70 lets take the bus instead. A very small number may take the bus to avoid the $20 + parking charge but even for them the extra $5.40 will not drive their bus decision. Meanwhile the 20 people sitting next to them who have no choice but to take the bus will be crowding the free bus. If we have extra money for this route better to increase the service frequency.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

...if your neighbour does lives in the Glebe and doesn't earn the largest of incomes, he's still sitting on a nice piece of property he could sell, turn a profit and relocate elsewhere and cut his living expenses. So again, I'm having trouble understanding how he can't "afford to move"? I think he's simply unwilling to move and change his lifestyle, which is his choice.

Especially when he's living in the equivalent to a "sensory torture chamber".

No, instead, the city should only develop as these people determine is acceptable which far too often is "not at all".

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was at the meeting, and that was not the response at all. The Councillor very clearly explained that he is weighing competing interests - the interest of the residents of that street vs. the broader interest of keeping the shuttle route as direct as possible to entice people out of their cars. He and the City (OSEG did not take a position) may have reached a conclusion that the community does not like, but it was a considered position. This refrain that the City isn't listening is getting a bit tiresome.

David is ever the pragmatist. He wants to get re-elected, so he doesn't want to piss off half his ward, but at the same time he doesn't want to be completely marginalized within City Hall on his other pet issues. I do think that he is a bit tone deaf about the degree of frustration that even the moderates on the community associations are feeling about the lack of interest the City shows towards even their most benign suggestions to mitigate the negative impacts of Lansdowne traffic.

Perhaps the City's position is considered, but I think it is fair to question why the City is unwilling to consider other routes. My quick looksee on Google Maps shows both the suggested route and an alternate route that would take Col. By Drive north to Pretoria Bridge then back south along the Q.E. Driveway, keeping shuttle traffic away from residential streets by exclusively using arterial roads and NCC driveways, both would take 8 mins.

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure how I feel about that one - I see both sides, and frankly find the concern about school buses running for a few hours 10 times a year to be a bit overblown. I do think that the noise on that issue is taking away from other, more important items. In particular, the community should be focusing on getting the Clegg-Fifth footbridge advanced, and the free and improved transit service on Bank. Those are items that would really make a difference on a day to day basis.

As I understand it, the threshold at which the shuttle buses will begin to be used has been lowered, so that will mean rather more times per year that the shuttle buses will be running up and down Lakeside. Besides which

You're right that the Lakeview folks were quite voluble at Monday's meeting. I think that the fact that those folks are upset about their street being turned into a feeder route and their desire to confront the City and OSMUG reps about it, doesn't detract from the efforts to push the footbridge forward and promote transit changes on Bank. Frankly, the City shows no interest in hurrying up on either of these issues, so I'm not sure how a little diversion into the venting of spleens about Lakeside harms anything.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Now with regards to parking and the city "respecting their practices", are you seriously comparing the neighbourhood around the former JetForm baseball stadium to the Glebe?? If you can't understand that there are other factors that are unique to the Glebe that would interfere with the city accepting a petition to reduce, restrict or eliminate street parking in the Glebe, than there is no use in continuing this conversation. You can't compare apples to oranges.

So, let me get this straight? Are you really saying that you think that residents of one part of the City should have fewer rights to petition for changes to the parking rules on their street simply by virtue of the fact that they live next door to the City's current cause celebre?

That there should be two classes of taxpayers in this City? Isn't that what you and JFF keep beating on about, that people in the Glebe are so entitled and are demanding rights that residents of other neighbourhoods could not expect? Yet, it seems you would support denying them, from what I understand is supposed to be a pro forma process by which residents can seek to have the parking rules on their street changed by way of a prescribed percentage supporting a City-approved petition, as is the case anywhere else in the City?

Just asking.

[alecz_dad]

Different guy. Different experience of torture.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Especially when he's living in the equivalent to a "sensory torture chamber".

No, instead, the city should only develop as these people determine is acceptable which far too often is "not at all".