03-14-2022, 02:19 PM
(03-14-2022, 01:07 PM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote:(03-14-2022, 11:38 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.
In one way the neighborhood was destroyed for any family that may have wanted to buy a house and live there. Obviously "Lester St." isn't on anyone's shopping list anymore. It was also destroyed for families who owned houses near student-occupied slums.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment. Who refused to accommodate change? Families who owned or occupied properties within walking distance of Laurier/UW? Anyone who didn't accommodate the slumification of that area?
On the other hand, the neighborhood has been reborn as a (figuirative) mecca for slum lords and developers.
If only there had been prior land owners / residents, city council, and planners with some kind of vision for making an appropriately designed and integrated student neighbourhood... but that would have required admitting to students as been acceptable neighbours instead of recipients of cashed out, derelict former family homes that "slumify" the area.
As if there wasn't a better example for how future residents have so little power in shaping where they will be forced to live. I guarantee you most students would much rather live in a properly configured and lively village if someone had been willing to plan for it and swallow the pill of change.
Instead we have a sterile concrete wall on King, Albert with zero street activation or coordination, and 140m of innovative 'woonerf'-lite on Larch St to pat on the back for making a nice community.