Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
The big issue I have with the way the HRM handles planning is that they go into way too much detail for each project. Each is treated more or less as a novel thing when in reality there are hundreds of similar apartment buildings around the city. The complaints are the same every time - it is utterly worthless to listen to NIMBY #8432893489 complain that the building is too tall. Seriously, they might as well attach a header to each development report with fake names complaining about height, traffic, parking, "green space", and telling everybody to think of the children.
|
You know this got me thinking to the first time I wrote a planning report - I was so proud of it. 4.5 pages of the greatest stuff I had ever written. When I got it back from the GM of the Planning Department I worked for; it was 2 paragraphs. He told me I wrote way too much and it wasn't university lol.
Each manager/director has a different style. If you look at some of the reports written for variance appeals; they are pretty short. Council reports can get a bit long anywhere; but it depends on the style of the person in charge. I'm guess that someone in HRM likes them to be detailed; where as most of the people I've work with; like them short. I'd show an example of mine; but apparently my CPC reports from 2007 have been taken down (since they only keep the last two years online).
I want to quote something which I think is important to remember. This is from the second section of Alberta's Municipal Government, Part 17 (Planning and Development Section):
'The purpose of this part (P&D section) and the regulations and Bylaws undert this part is to provide means whereby plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted
(a) to
achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of human settlement, and
(b) to maintain and
improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of human settlement are situated in Alberta;
without
infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that is necessary for the overall greater public interest'. (Emphasis added)
Now i've noted a few sections - which basically say (in simple terms); strive for balance. Planning is a difficult thing; because on the one hand you have people who believe that the optimum use of the land should be achieved (tall and big). On the other; you have people who believe that change is not needed and status quo is good. Planners have to often fall in the middle and it's not easy. I have more grey hairs than I want to count and I'm turning 33 in September - mainly from the stress of achieving that balance.
Put yourself in the other sides shoes for a minute - remember, they don't understand why people want to live in highrise residential. They were raised that the 'dream' is to have a house in the burbs with kids. They don't understand population shift; DINKS or any of that...they just want to stay in their homes forever (they don't realize that as they continue to get older; keeping such a big empty house for 2 people or 1 is not feasible). Heck, I was raised by a single parent to believe that was the dream - do I own a house, nope. Will I? Possibly; but not right now and as soon as my mom had the chance; she sold the house and moved into a condo! So now she's totally preaching condo living.
As time passes; the choice of the consumer seems to be shifting (not very fast); but still noticably to condos (townhouses or multi). It will continue because I'm suspecting (this is my guess) that as time passes and the baby boomers age and retire; more of them will want condos or developers will propose high rise seniors residences that they would have an interest in living in. It just takes time is all; time and patience.
We seem to be shifting from the topic of this thread though...
Prev
Linear Mode
