Hi Brian this sounds a bit promising. How much influence do they have and how many came down on the it looks great side? I did listen to a good 10 hrs of the hearing and spoke. My point was dog parks I had some good info where the city had already acknowledged the current need for dog parks. They didn’t ask me a question but a friend said the point was clear and she saw a few members take notes and a couple ‘hmmm’s’ hopefully another aspect of the park shortage to consider. The plan is dog owner genderfication, if you can pay a fortune for doggie day care and walkers no problem but that leaves out a large part of the population that own dogs and make life decisions based on meeting their needs. This plan has to go back for revision the lack of basic amenities is so glaring and the point about that was well expressed many of those in favour said it needed to be fixed. Fingers crossed for some improvement.
Thank you for this Brian. Almost nothing is said about what constitutes a 'community' and how this plan can retain that sense of community which exists now for residents. If they want to wipe this out then you'd think they would at least discuss how this will create a new sense of community, and the type of housing which the vast majority actually want.
This is a general (2 part) question based on reading a pile of your articles since last night:
1) I am against concrete towers and understand their GHG impact during the building phase. How is their carbon footprint worse than low to mid-rise buildings once they are built?
2) I understand that towers are worth developer's while to build as they make tons of $$, but wow do we fund low to mid rise buildings?
1). Low to mid rise wood frame buildings use less energy, create less GHGs each year they operate. Wood is inherently a better insulator so ongoing energy requirements are reduced-lots of studies prove this.
2). Basically we start by building just what we need- the Broadway Plan enables 2x as many homes as we will need .high-rise gets built to maximize profits. There are lots of ways communities can find a lower density of housing- co-ops, lease to own, land leases are just a few.
Very disturbing that an FOI request should have been necessary to get this out, the people in charge have forgotten who they're answering to. Oh, wait a minute, they're answering to the developers...
Hi Brian this sounds a bit promising. How much influence do they have and how many came down on the it looks great side? I did listen to a good 10 hrs of the hearing and spoke. My point was dog parks I had some good info where the city had already acknowledged the current need for dog parks. They didn’t ask me a question but a friend said the point was clear and she saw a few members take notes and a couple ‘hmmm’s’ hopefully another aspect of the park shortage to consider. The plan is dog owner genderfication, if you can pay a fortune for doggie day care and walkers no problem but that leaves out a large part of the population that own dogs and make life decisions based on meeting their needs. This plan has to go back for revision the lack of basic amenities is so glaring and the point about that was well expressed many of those in favour said it needed to be fixed. Fingers crossed for some improvement.
Yes, fingers crossed as we head into the hone stretch of hearings on this one.
Thank you for this Brian. Almost nothing is said about what constitutes a 'community' and how this plan can retain that sense of community which exists now for residents. If they want to wipe this out then you'd think they would at least discuss how this will create a new sense of community, and the type of housing which the vast majority actually want.
Sadly, I suspect some folks don’t understand the concept of community.
Thanks for reading
This is a general (2 part) question based on reading a pile of your articles since last night:
1) I am against concrete towers and understand their GHG impact during the building phase. How is their carbon footprint worse than low to mid-rise buildings once they are built?
2) I understand that towers are worth developer's while to build as they make tons of $$, but wow do we fund low to mid rise buildings?
1). Low to mid rise wood frame buildings use less energy, create less GHGs each year they operate. Wood is inherently a better insulator so ongoing energy requirements are reduced-lots of studies prove this.
2). Basically we start by building just what we need- the Broadway Plan enables 2x as many homes as we will need .high-rise gets built to maximize profits. There are lots of ways communities can find a lower density of housing- co-ops, lease to own, land leases are just a few.
Very disturbing that an FOI request should have been necessary to get this out, the people in charge have forgotten who they're answering to. Oh, wait a minute, they're answering to the developers...
It seems anything not for is against and to be resisted rather than learned from.
Thanks for reading