[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

A smaller step change for each community from where they were 5 years ago instead of a sweeping policy change across the city.

Something more refined and granular would be harder to rally so much of the city against and likely would not have become a primary election topic.



I would still point to places like Westbrook as a huge problem for the "shut up and accept the blanket rezoning" position. That field has been empty forever and it is a reminder that while people are being told that they have to adjust their thinking about their homes and communities to meet the new density requirements, this gigantic field has been left empty on top of a C-Train station because... ??!?

I know the details as to what happened there, and that is not the point. The point is that it is too obvious to see that empty lot on your daily commute but then have someone tell you that it is a "dire emergency" that requires a big change to your community that you do not support.

Politically speaking, that empty field and other big empty lots like it, hurts the blanket rezoning argument.

There are massive procedural challenges with trying to go granular, and it is super slow. We are still doing granular either way through LAPs/etc, but it is much less productive without being backed up by blanket rezoning. LAPs are incredibly slow, detailed, and resource intensive - which is actually a good thing, but makes it a terrible method for redrawing land-use maps. And it would actually serve to remove a guardrail for moderate density developments. And also you'd have to totally change the LAP process and redo all of the ones we've already done because they don't technically speak the same language as the land-use bylaw (e.g. LAPs deal in storeys, land-use deals in meters)

You can do sweeping incremental changes like R1->R2 and R2->R4 and all the piecemeal stuff consolidates into whatever, but that wouldn't meaningfully improve any process. Most developments bigger than a duplex would still need to apply for further land-use amendments, because these changes wouldn't align with LAPs which outline nodes and corridors for higher density.

The only sensible path here is to scale back RCG definitions.

This house with the teal siding (and all of its neighbours) will revert from H-GO to R1. ####ing lunacy.


As for Westbrook, you're just advocating for the Vancouver and Toronto strategy. Towers and SFHs served by giant highways. No thanks. Westbrook and other TODs will come in time, but we can only build so many towers. There is clear and obvious demand for grade oriented infill.