03-12-2019, 10:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2019, 10:21 AM by danbrotherston.)
(03-12-2019, 09:31 AM)robdrimmie Wrote: The article features this quote: "So, there will not be a behemoth, solid, cement-wall parking garage looming over these residential houses" and mentions that according to the plans, one resident would have been able to touch it from their backyard.
If (an important qualifier) that's an accurate description of what was proposed, then I think it's a good thing to establish relatively early in our intense growth period that isn't acceptable to abut a residential neighbourhood. My yard backs onto commercial space, but it isn't 5 storeys tall, nor can I touch it from my yard. It's a loading bay and there's enough space for 18-wheelers to navigate to it. That space makes a big difference and I don't think it's unreasonable for residents to insist that developments maintain a human scale where they are right up against two or three storey neighbourhoods.
....
This is a misread of the article, (I know I made the same mistake), which was already an exaggeration.
They cannot touch this parking garage "from" their back yard. They can touch it from the other side of the laneway behind their house. That is, already standing 4 meters from their property line, and behind their own garages and parked cars. This is probably 20 or so meters from their actual back yard. Now I am to understand that these people may hang out in their laneway, but it is still misrepresenting things to say this is in their back yard.
I was always mixed on this (I'd love to see less parking near an LRT station) but at the same time, development is more important, and probably 9 times out of 10 the objections I hear seem to be an excuse for "no development" rather than "this development is bad, you should do x development instead".
You'll note that these folks do live in houses which are still zoned for single family low density housing, even 400 meters from an LRT station.