Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
I'm not trying to play 'gotcha', but isn't this very close to what is happening with TSMV? The course was cleared, landscaped (including bunkers, water hazards, and cart paths)...pretty much everything short of laying the unnatural sod. Of course the end-result is unlikely to be mostly modest row-houses, but that could probably be achieved to a greater degree with a more constructive process.
The other thing is that there is already a couple schools and some other commercial services down there. Add more housing and you likely see even more services like a corner store, which could reduce the need to go into the centre of town as often (ie. parking, traffic).
|
That's not what is proposed though. I thought you were suggesting the entire project would be affordable housing.
Quote:
|
As part of the two ASPs, a minimum 10 per cent affordable housing is required to be part of the development. The two plans also have a density bonusing toolkit, which could see affordable housing go to as high as 20 per cent.
|
https://www.rmoutlook.com/canmore/in...dp-mla-8360614
It's not so much the traffic, the town does it's own best work messing that stuff up. It's homes for people to live in the community and provide the supports that all the tourism brings. A lot of my argument is based on when Banff was closed to further development, Canmore became a large labour supplier. Now that Canmore is also in need of that, their is no where for those lower pay workers to live.