Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
We would be ~30 years out from 3000 people, but whether it's 500 in 5 years or 3000 in 30, what if that number of people did NOT have to drive for groceries, pharmacy, post office, coffee, fast food, pub, daycare, barber, lingerie/running store/bakery/all the other services there? Nor would they drive to go for a walk/bike ride near the reservoir. Nor would many/most of them drive to work (if they work that is, as this would have been an amazing place to live as a retiree).
The fact that it can be a congested mess at times right now is exactly why it makes sense to build housing that is less car-dependent.
|
Yes, that’s the long-term outcome - different people would shop at Glenmore Landing, people who lived on site. And that’s a good thing.
In the short to medium term, it would displace the people who currently drive to Glenmore Landing. They would get crowded out and need to find a new bank, a new barber, a new bakery, and a new coffee shop to hang out with friends in*. So those who weren’t happy with the proposal were not all being complete morons and defending an empty parking lot. They were being selfish. But being selfish isn’t dumb, and almost everyone is selfish about stuff that affects them personally.
That’s why I don’t like how we frame these issues in public discourse: this new thing will be awesome for everybody, and anyone who disagree is ignorant or a bad person. In reality, every big change is a tradeoff with winners and losers. When those in authority can’t even acknowledge downsides, it fosters a distrust of institutions. People feel they aren’t being presented with the full picture - because they aren’t.
* Not to mention the lab, one of the busiest in the city. Between patients and staff, it probably has a footprint of 30 parking spots, and is one of the main reasons the parking lot is a ####-show.