[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

The suburbs of Vancouver have had impressive results increasing population density levels along their arterials with with wood frame apartment projects of this scale. Even though this would have been a good location for higher-profile construction, as a first step, it's also a good place to start with a project of this scale -- there's no need to go straight from houses to 20+ storey towers which become a lightning rod for opposition and resentment. There's nothing wrong with easing people in to a generation of changes that are coming their neighbourhood, when there are so many other un/underdeveloped lots that could be built up to higher profile in the future as people get more comfortable with the idea.

To me it's a little like the situation with the CDPs currently under development for the areas around the future LRT stations that prescribe leaving the blocks of established single-family homes intact. At first blush you might ask yourself, why keep that lower density around an LRT station, but I think there's some forward thinking method to that madness. Looking around Ottawa, history seems to suggest that redevelopment often targets existing built up areas rather than the undeveloped lots, and you see perfectly good houses/buildings getting knocked down and replaced with larger developments even while nearby empty gas station and surface parking lots stay undeveloped. (who owns what lot, and the personalities involved play a role, to be sure, but this can't be the only reason that downtown parking lots last for generations while new buildings have replaced once-fine old ones). I think that under these new plans, in the short term, new development should be pushed on to those un/underdeveloped lots giving the benefits of increased population density while mitigating some of the impacts of intensification on existing neighbourhoods. But in 20 years, once the empty lots are all developed up, then, if there's still demand, restrictions on building up on lots with existing dwellings can start to be lifted, and at the same time we can reconsider what sort of scale that development should take at a time when people are much more comfortable with the idea of living in denser neighbourhoods with a mix of building types and scales.

Easiest way to achieve that: tax the value of the land, not the building/use. There goes any incentive to leave a lot vacant or extremely under-utilized.