This may not be totally rational, but I don't really mind the Mt Royal NIMBYsm. They might be the one time where 'character of the community' is actually a valid argument (even if it feels a little gross) - compared to 50s/60s 'hoods where the character preservation is for decrepit bungalows on 50 foot lots.
Moreover, I'm not sure that getting some higher density in there would be much of a net benefit. Realistically we'd see a handful luxury low-medium density developments that would otherwise be built elsewhere where they could arguably play an important role in helping other areas develop/revitalize (obviously a complex discussion, but looking at somewhere like West District where some posh developments may be paving the way
In terms of taxation Mt Royal probably aren't paying their fair share as there are no economies of scale for any of the infrastructure there - I'd definitely be in favour of a super-low-density modifier for their property taxes.
Communities like Banff Trail are exactly where we can make major gains on missing-middle housing. I get some of the concerns, but often they are short-sighted and contradictory. Complaing about parking OR traffic, but you can't bitch about both. Mandating parking minimums is why we end up with so much traffic. The real solution is to effectively cost parking, but somehow I doubt Karen will be too stoked about choosing between paying for a street parking pass and clearing the useless #### out of her garage so she can park for free and stop being part of the problem herself.
|