[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Muta

Two things - firstly, did you read the report, or are you just dismissing it because you think it's wrong because it was commissioned by a municipal body? Secondly, is your position that development cannibalizes other areas of a city? If so, why is this is a bad thing? Universal urban growth is primarily based upon the movement and relocation of residential and commercial opportunities based into new and revitalized developments, homes, neighborhoods, towers, etc. These projects are what help keep a city growing, investment incoming, and jobs created. This growth is happening everywhere, all the time, all over the world, every day. I guess I'd just like to know why this is a bad thing... we live in a free market economy, so suggesting we are 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is a bit myopic within this context. It seems you are suggesting there might be something fundamentally wrong with new development because of this.



Again, assuming you have read it, are you suggesting that the information in the EY report is inaccurate? If so, where, specifically, does it go wrong within which particular data set or forecasting?

The answers you seek are provided in the past couple of pages by a number of people. You have been led to water, it is up to you to decide if you want to drink.