Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
And after we've blown our contingency fund, demanded more tax dollars from our higher levels of government (which they will still have to get from us), and have a city that is still expanding, what then? And if we're having trouble funding infrastructure for areas that haven't existed long enough to have paid any sizeable amount of taxes, how are we supposed to implement your traffic solution, which is to build infracture for growth before it happens? Density does create traffic, but our current growth patterns produce even more traffic. Just think about how many parking spaces a family in a Victoria Park condo has, compared to a family in Cranston.
|
Like someone previously said, I agree with you, but to a point.
The "Victoria Park condo vs. house in Cranston" is a false dichotomy. It is used by both "sides" (I use that term lightly) of this debate (people don't want condos vs. condos have less impact than houses), and it discredits both. There are many other options that fall in the middle.
Further, where do "the suburbs" start? Where does "the inner city" end? Even if there were a magic line, there would be poor examples of land use and planning on both sides of it.