Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets
Thanks for that.
I can kind of see both sides of that issue
One the one hand you understand why it would be more beneficial and efficient (read : Cost Effective) for the developers to want to consolidate all the rentals or non-market housing to one separate site from the market component of their development.
The more money they're able to save means the more units and housing they can replace and/or add.
But on the other side of the coin, I also agree with the sentiment that you would really want to try to create a mix of housing-types (and residents) as much as possible and avoid a 'balkanization' that would inevitably happen when you have separate lots with solely market housing on the one hand and others with exclusively non-market on the other hand.
It just makes for a better neighborhood overall IMHO, with a good variation of residents rather than a tiered and stratified kind of neighbourhood.
|
The transition point is a really good one - no need for the residents to find temporary accommodation while the project is constructed since the new units are at a different site and they can remain in place during that time. That's a huge stress reliever for the residents.
The flip side is that all renters in one building would themselves form a community of their own, rather than being a few floors in a condo tower as the "poor cousins".
Threaded Mode