04-09-2018, 10:11 AM
@Welltoldtales
So I'll say straight up, I think they're wrong, this development is 250 meters from the central transit station, it is exactly where high density should be, and yes, that will affect their neighbourhood, but that's the reality of living 250 meters from a major transit station.
I don't think the "protecting low density residential" is a worthy goal. Why protect it? And are we protecting it by doing what we're doing. The author describes the problems with the protections these areas have. I argue we'd achieve what I think are the real goals (healthy, dense neighbourhoods, that are still residential and coheasive, and human scale) by rezoning the entire neighbourhood for medium density (say town homes, 3 story walkups, the like) and set parking requirements to make it feasible to build many small developments.
I don't think they'd support this either. Maybe the author would (the author suggests this as an alternative--but only for the land in question--that's not nearly enough density for the closeness of the transit station, and also, not nearly enough land devoted to medium density), but the majority of residents I don't think would. So the question for me is what are they actually trying to protect.
So I'll say straight up, I think they're wrong, this development is 250 meters from the central transit station, it is exactly where high density should be, and yes, that will affect their neighbourhood, but that's the reality of living 250 meters from a major transit station.
I don't think the "protecting low density residential" is a worthy goal. Why protect it? And are we protecting it by doing what we're doing. The author describes the problems with the protections these areas have. I argue we'd achieve what I think are the real goals (healthy, dense neighbourhoods, that are still residential and coheasive, and human scale) by rezoning the entire neighbourhood for medium density (say town homes, 3 story walkups, the like) and set parking requirements to make it feasible to build many small developments.
I don't think they'd support this either. Maybe the author would (the author suggests this as an alternative--but only for the land in question--that's not nearly enough density for the closeness of the transit station, and also, not nearly enough land devoted to medium density), but the majority of residents I don't think would. So the question for me is what are they actually trying to protect.