01-03-2024, 11:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2024, 11:55 AM by danbrotherston.)
Yeah, that's pretty much as expected. I don't really agree with any of the proposals, but it's revealing that they used 50 acres as a hard limit, and "near transit" is an also ran criteria.
Basically I'd put good money on all three options being large suburban or even exurban plots right now, any of which would make the city meaningfully worse in the near and long terms. (and the sites will probably get points for "near transit" because there exists a bus, never mind it's hours or frequency are because the people making these decisions don't actually care about transit, just the impression of transit).
But welcome to North America, where the "our cities are improving" must be annotated by "well actually by 'improving' we mean they're getting worse more slowly than they used to be".
The proposal probably is the better option, but IMO, megaprojects like this are usually bad ideas, and incremental improvements are a better strategy. Both St. Mary's and GRH have significant room to progressively expand and improve over time.
Basically I'd put good money on all three options being large suburban or even exurban plots right now, any of which would make the city meaningfully worse in the near and long terms. (and the sites will probably get points for "near transit" because there exists a bus, never mind it's hours or frequency are because the people making these decisions don't actually care about transit, just the impression of transit).
But welcome to North America, where the "our cities are improving" must be annotated by "well actually by 'improving' we mean they're getting worse more slowly than they used to be".
The proposal probably is the better option, but IMO, megaprojects like this are usually bad ideas, and incremental improvements are a better strategy. Both St. Mary's and GRH have significant room to progressively expand and improve over time.