Comment 114709

By RobF (registered) | Posted November 06, 2015 at 21:40:53 in reply to Comment 114700

Most planning decisions override the feelings of local residents. That is often necessary as individual interest often does not align with collective interest and something has to give. That's almost a given.

How much ROW is available for infill in the photo? ... I see excessive space, but not enough to build townhouses without encroaching on the adjacent properties. I'm not contesting whether suburban retrofits are possible ... anything is possible if the resources and political will exists to do it.

I suppose the townhouse comment was editorializing. I know they have townhouses in that area. I'm also well aware that suburban housing in the GTHA and Metro Vancouver is getting more compact and denser for several reasons. I wouldn't describe the overall neighbourhood form as compact or dense, however. All things being equal i'd prefer to live in a compact, denser neighbourhood in the lower city. I can't picture being able to be a one or no car household off Mud Street. That is quite possible in many parts of the lower-city.

What I meant by "when you get down to it everyone is NIMBY" was very specific. We all don't want certain things in our backyards, out our windows, or next to our balconies. More than that we all view what happens nearest to us with greater scrutiny.

In my view the term NIMBY is often used to shutdown open and frank discussion. I favour intensification if it enhances my neighbourhood. I've had to defend that position in front of an unfriendly audience of neighbours. But that support is not unconditional or abstract. It must include a discussion about how much, in what form, and with what impact ... and for whom will that impact be felt most.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-11-06 22:44:06

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds