Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
Take Garrison Woods as an example. In the picture above, there is lots of green space... and medium density condos/townhouses. The same space with that could house the same number of people, each with their own house and yard. Same end result, different building concept. How is that helping anything? Because it looks different? Because we can later build more medium density condos/townhouses where that green space was before?
|
C'mon Calculoso, look at a row of houses and a row of townhouses and tell me that there's not a higher number of people on the same patch of land. You're calling a backyard greenspace but that's PRIVATE greenspace, that doesn't do joe citizen much good when he's not allowed on it. An open park has communal benefits, not just for the immediate homeowner. Townhouses also have a bit of backyard/greenspace, just less of it.
You keep using Garrison Woods, head down to River Run / Erlton behind Talisman center as an example of medium high density has fit a lot more people into a given area. Garrison Woods and the issue of "greenspace" is bound as there are restrictions on what can be built where.
As for Stampede Station, prelim plans do have a rather large parkade planned. The City's strategy is to limit parking spaces to discourage people from driving in, as there are not enough roads to support it. Makes sense to me, but I'll be the 1st to admit that the transit system is woefully inadequate.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that the townhouse/high rise condo lifestyle is not for everyone. I lived 2 blocks from Bromley Square and I certainly wouldn't want to raise kids there. However, I think our culture and traditions tells us that "Kids & Family = Suburbia" and we instinctively look towards single family detached when the time comes a calling. That's a decision made by the individual - and understandable if they do so.
My belief is that they should be prepared to pay a hefty premium if you choose to want a brand new single detached house in a new suburb. Yep, attached to the purchase price would be a fee to fund a new interchange and roads between you and downtown (so a new Glenmore/Elbow interchange would be directly funded (partly only) by new suburbian residents), capital and operating costs of a new school, capital and operating costs for Police/Fire/EMS. The current city "fee" covers some of the capital costs for items in the immediate neighborhood, but doesn't cover operating costs of new services, or capital costs outside of the immediate area. Would be better for residents of a new community too, as you wouldn't have to wait 5-7 years for a new elementary school, or interchange.
(this also means the City would need to collect this fee and ACTUALLY use it for it's intended purpose, not plow it into general revenues)
To dodge this new "full cost fee", of course you could get a house in an older established areas such as Varsity or Ranchlands/Hawkwood where infrastructure exists. Price will inevitably rise in these areas, but the "full cost" fee should better equalize and incentivize the decision to move to established areas, vs just moving to a new subdivision. As property values rise, you'd also see density increase via more duplexes and infills being built, as you see in Sunnyside/West Hillhurst right now.
Not saying this is a perfect proposal by anymeans - affordability becomes a concern, but this raises an interesting question - at what point in a city's growth should the "dream" of single detached houses for all families not be a reality? Your average New Yorker doesn't run for the burbs when they have kids, nor does the average Vancouverite as it's just not possible. Should there always be an expectation that single family detached housing be available for all?