Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kathleen's avatar

Let's be real, the suburbs were planned for the vehicle - not communities of families. This has resulted in sprawl, thousands of kilometres of asphalt, water/sewer and limited - if at all - public transportation. This also drives municipal initial costs and on-going operations and maintenance, which is frequently ignored as it's out-of-sight. We need to take a more responsible view of urban planning, something Canada can learn from less vehicle-centric countries.

Crabby Canuck's avatar

I was with you until you got into Greenbelt bashing, and surreptitiously trying to make a case for sprawl based on "evidence". Evidence of what exactly?

Part of the problem isn't urbanity, it's the younger generation's expectations. What worked in the 50s, 60s and 70s doesn't work now. But no one told them. The same fantasy of large lots, "family-sized homes", "safe communities" (because they were new) got sold to them like crack cocaine. But the world has changed dramatically as a result of the population explosion and relentless immigration.

The pressures on availability for developable land are in the stratosphere across the entire country, especially with geographically constrained cities being even more challenged.

But the last thing we need to be doing is replicating the sprawl of the late 20th century and exporting it to smaller cities and communities into the early 21st. This is a recipe for disaster. More automobile-dependant-development, more GHG's, more unlivablilty being created in the name of affordability.

What we really need is a paradigm and attitude shift - especially coming form people like yourselves who are "in the business" - and not just catering to unrealistic expectations.

No posts

Ready for more?