Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
I don't think that's the right comparison. You have to compare what a new build would be, not what used to be there.
Without these laws, the new build is a 3 story infill with absolutely maxed out lot coverage. In many cases, the massing of the row houses going up is actually smaller. Worst case, they are the same (but traffic! Parking! Garbage bins! Children!).
|
I get that, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to say "Look, there are people who are pissed about this because they have to deal with a level of height/massing that their neighbourhood has never ever had," and pointing out "Well, you know, this was always something that COULD have happened in the past if you had a monster single-detached dwelling or RC-2 side-by-side builder special go up next to you ANYWAY, so it's not as though you have much ground to complain about this," doesn't get people very far.
Klumpenhouwer's analysis is, in my opinion, actually quite superficial and facile. I'm not saying the bungalow owner who has a 13-metre-tall RC-2 box go up next to them has any legal standing to oppose it, but there is a significant amount of property owners in this city who aren't ####ing happy when that happens to them, and telling these people that their concerns are imaginary or otherwise unjustifiable isn't winning them over. Chodes like Chu and MacLean get voted in because they 'listen';
actually listening and being at least a little bit empathetic would go a long way to get buy-in from people who otherwise think urbanists are, as I put it earlier, a bunch of effete ######nozzles.