Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisis
So, an Owner is spending considerably more that they have to in order to build a Tim Horton's in a more sustainable manner and you 🞵🞵🞵🞵 all over the idea because it has a drive-thru and is therefore inherently evil?
Sorry to shake you into reality but that Tim's was going to be built there anyways, c/w a drive-thru. There's no denying that simply not building the Tim's would be far better for the environment, but that's not going to happen. Like it or not, society is not going to return to a hunter-gatherer existence living off the land.
I normally try to avoid this type of rant, but there are some posters here that can't be pleased. They cry about how there should be more sustainable buildings, but when one is proposed they're still not happy. Perhaps if it was a Starbucks, it would be OK....
edit: btw, this isn't directed at those questioning how the inner loop of the drive-thru is going to work. I'm also curious about that. I'm guessing, it has to do with the "mobile ordering".
|
The context you're missing is as follows: the current zoning for that parcel only allows mixed use developments, not standard low density, car-oriented retail.
The ONLY reason they're making a big push for this faux-sustainable development is to get the mixed-use zoning removed! The current zoning actually requires a more sustainable development!
Threaded Mode