Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
So expropriate the land, evict the homeowners, and bulldoze them all?
|
wtf? No...just let a buyer build something sensible for that arterial road.
btw there is nobody to evict since the listing describes the dwelling as 'unliveable'. But it's great that 75' lot can sit vacant because that lot simply does not make sense for a SFH anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
But GGG thinks there shouldn’t be any detached SFH in the near inner city. The only way to achieve that would be by mandate, not the market.
Look at Altadore. It’s far denser than it was in early 90s when I rented by first apartment there. All sorts of condos, walkups, and infills have been built. I’d guess more than a 30 per cent population increase. And yet you still see old original detached homes in the area, many of them evidently owned by people who aren’t wealthy. Why haven’t they sold? Who knows. But unless we start kicking people out of their homes to densify by mandate, densification will happen incrementally and be measured in progress over decades.
|
Oh, I see, you just want to argue pedantically in bad faith. The market could sort this out fine without draconian zoning.
Maybe, just maybe, GGG means that no lot should be restricted to ONLY be a SFH in that area? Just like Altadore, the market can decide what makes sense for each lot...and many lots that will still mean fully detached. Which is fine.
The problem is that densification isn't happening fast enough because of arbitrary zoning. Change that and it will still happen incrementally and measured...just a lot faster than current.