Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit


For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
(7 hours ago)KevinL Wrote: Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

Perfect; I love it. That's how it should be!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(7 hours ago)KevinL Wrote: I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.

Like poor old Edith Macefield.

   

Coke
Reply
(7 hours ago)Canard Wrote:


Great video! Your embedded version didn't work for me (video is here if others have the same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1o0myj_YXY)

I guess their PR folks decided it was best not to include a shot of the dome Smile
Reply
(7 hours ago)KevinL Wrote: I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.

This is sometimes prevented by zoning. For example, in Northdale, the market clearly was pushing to increase the density, but doing so by building significantly was illegal. As a result, dodgy landlords moved in and packed family houses full of students. Then when the city finally noticed that they had massively screwed up, almost every house got demolished and replaced by apartment buildings over the course of just a few years.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if there were no density limits in zoning. It’s not appropriate to suggest that people would then randomly have 60-story towers going up next to them — it’s not generally worth the increased building costs to build tall towers like that unless the land is expensive. But putting additions of various sizes onto houses would be possible, which would allow some additional density without making a sudden change in the character of the neighbourhood. The actual built density would track the “market” density and most likely increase gradually. Of course eventually some areas would end up with highrises but they would usually be a more natural evolution from what was there before.

A lot of zoning is like this — if, without zoning, a small number of something would move in, it won’t have much effect, so why forbid it? If on the other hand lots of something would move in, that should tell you the zoning is economically inappropriate, so forbidding it will probably have even worse effects. Uses like professional offices and even retail are like this.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)