this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
77 points (93.3% liked)
Canada
7193 readers
477 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
๐ Meta
๐บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
๐๏ธ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
๐ Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montrรฉal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
๐ป Universities
๐ต Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
๐ฃ๏ธ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
๐ Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I believe we need more good multi-plexes, the article makes it look like it's evil not to allow promoters to replace single-family houses by massive skyscrapers of 12+ units on a land that is surrounded by single family homes.
We don't want to replace houses by cheap tenement buildings, we need a more elegant densification where each unit has at least land for a small garden.
There are areas which should have single family homes, but in my opinion if you have a single family home anywhere near the downtown core of a town or city you should be prepared to have your neighbourhood turn to skyscrapers and tower complexes. It's just the way that cities need to go in order to survive. If you want a single family home you shouldn't be living in the middle or a city, move to the outskirts and the suburbs where there is more space.
Allowing downtown to be surrounded by an ocean of suburban sprawl means that suburbanites get preferential access to nature. In hyper urbanized countries, the kids who live in skyscrapers can bicycle to the mountain wilderness. Suburbia creates an ocean of barrier to that.
I live in a suburb with a ton of parks, if that counts.
I do wonder why these parks are so expensive, thoughโฆ
Honestly, I believe that we just need to change the definition of the single residential unit so that it only restricts to residential units of a certain size. Allow townhouses and low-rise apartments in the same area. They're about the same height and their appearance doesn't have to deviate much from what's already being done to single units.
A properly made town-house making the most use of a single unit lot can easily house four families. Take a double lot and you can quadruple it by making some concessions on each unit.
People might complain about three or four story buildings suddenly popping up everywhere, but in reality most houses are as tall as three and four story buildings already. They just waste the extra height with a triangular roof. Modern materials make a flat roof work fine even with how much snow we get, and you can multi-purpose the roof as a patio space on top of that. No more yards needed to waste space not being used for anything.
Great idea! I don't think anybody has a problem with the fact that a building houses more than one family... The troubles begin when a castle tower pops up next to their pool!
How would you manage car traffic in a neighborhood that is slowly converted to houses 3 or 4 times as many families with as many cars?
I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with being forced to obey the petty, tyrannical whims of whoever manages the building. HOAs have a bad reputation for a reason.
Haha yeah this! I lived in a HOA and we had to fight over petty details! I moved out as soon as I could! We should have broken down the HOA instead.
The leader of the council had a very small backyard and almost convinced everyone to ban patios and sheds because he didn't have enough room for either... ๐
It is because of parking. Every additional unit will require parking spaces, those units will have guests who must likely will park on the street and that's what gets the neighbourhood pitchforks out. They will scream how there will simultaneously be too much congestion and no parking spaces but also that people will speed down the street and make the neighbourhood unsafe. Parking and building height (neighbourhood character) are the two bullets nimbys use to kill a lot of housing projects.
BC will be introducing legislation in the fall that permits up to 4 units per parcel on all parcels. I'm interested to see how its handled by zoning and what things will look like in a few years. Hopefully this gets cities to start investing in transit as the higher densities might be able to support it.
With density, which enables adequate public transit, we need much less parking. Get rid of the parking requirement, and a lot of that problem goes away. I'd love to be able to buy a place without a useless-ass patch of concrete attached to it that'll cost me an extra 20k for no damn reason.
That's because it is.
There's a housing crisis on. When my kids grow up they're going to either live in my basement, their cars, or Texas. I don't care about you wanting to carve out the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to decorate the top.
Yeah, it's challenging... I've seen hostile promoters creating undesirable "condos" just to squeeze out as much profit as they can from a lot, for example by removing all the greenspace and putting parking lots.
How do you propose to manage preservation/improvement of green cities when promoters try to cram as many units as possible in a tiny land?
I want to increase housing density, but not by forcing everyone to live in "Judge Dredd" tenements everywhere...
It's worth looking into why they cram so many units in. In my opinion, because there's so little room to build any kind of density, where it is allowed, developers feel the need to maximize their space budget to cater to the segment of the population that really does want the smaller place.
If we had more flexibility, we could have a wider range of places, rather than just giant mansion houses and small tenements. The law doesn't allow for much else.