Comment 45195

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted August 09, 2010 at 00:03:08

Although it is included in a couple of these categories, I have to add to the list: sensible land use planning.

We can wreck even more greenspace (bad) on the EM which is btw in the red hill drainage basin and needs expensive new infrastructure (even worse), or we can revitalize a contaminated brownfield (good) which is on no developer's short list for residential housing or anything else.

Both proposals increase 'mixed use' which as Jane Jacobs observed is key to city vitality and economic success. But below a certain critical mass of mixed uses, the effect is almost nil. Sure, EM will benefit a couple restaurants near the stadium 10 days a year, but not Home Depot or anything else in a big box park. Without question the spin offs will be greater downtown, benefiting even more restaurants and other things too.

And EM homeowners are more likely to see game days as a big negative pain in the butt, while WH homeowners will be more likely to see this as another interesting facet of downtown vitality. These populations are different because they have partly selected their place of residence based on such attitudes.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds