Raise the Hammer

Jason, you're accusing me of making arbitrary statements? Take a look at my description of what makes a city great and then compare it to yours. Here's Eugene's well thought out argument..."I got two words for you Smith: Paris, France."

Furthermore, I would say that cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto and Houston are much more interesting to look at than cities like Paris, Brasilia, Washington, D.C. and any other city that limits building height and any other such nonsense.

To me, Paris looks bland, the buildings are all the same color, everything is flat and the every building looks like a monument to the past. I suppose if you like museums, then Paris is for you, but I would rather have a little variety in my city, different types of buildings and a little chaos. Perhaps it all comes down to personal preference.

I would like it Jason if you would address my point about the importance of the private sector economy in the life of a city? I mean, what good are urban plans if the buildings stand empty or house bingo parlours?

Seancb, even without lowering business taxes from where they are today, by simply removing zoning restrictions, you would encourage more economic activity in Hamilton. Instead of making plans based on what they can't build, developers would start making plans based purely on the demand from the marketplace. If there was a demand for single family homes, then that's what would get built. If as you say, there was a need for denser housing units, they would get built as well. Development would shift from type to type simply based on what the market was telling the developers they wanted built the most. In this way, the shape of the city would not be restricted by plans that were developed for a different time period and economic reality, they would reflect "real time" consumer preferences.