Comment 100742

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted April 30, 2014 at 18:13:05 in reply to Comment 100741

What I was commenting on was the common yet incorrect take-away from any mention of density or lane reduction. Why does it get automatically summarized as all-highrises-no-cars as if there's no middle ground?

Hamilton used to have a proper, dense, mixed use urban core surrounded by suburbs and farmland - and we will not see a return of the economic success of those days unless we strive to bring that built form back in our core so that it can support the surrounding areas again.

It doesn't by any means translate to an elimination of cars or suburbs, just a better balance. We are pretty close to the all-car-low-density extreme right now. We need to get back to the middle. We don't need to aim for the complete other end of the spectrum, and nobody is advocating for that.

Additionally, we don't have to go as far away as Europe to see the benefits of dense urban neighbourhoods - they exist in Canada. We also don't have to ignore the highest quality European examples simply because they are in a different country.

Comment edited by seancb on 2014-04-30 18:16:43

I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds