What's the stupidest reason to oppose a development you've heard in your city?

[MTLskyline]

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/mo...ntre-ville.php

Needless to say this one was rejected by the city... It's literally 3 blocks from Icone, and across the street from the future YUL towers.

[vid]

Wow, a 34 storey building downtown? That is like Dubai!

[Darkoshvilli]

Ah, 2009. When the 120m garden inn was the tallest building completed in the city in nearly 20 years. Those were the days.

[MTLskyline]

I recall reading a few years ago that some residents in the West Island suburb of Beaconsfield were opposed to the installation of sidewalks.

Bryan Barbieri, a Creswell Street resident of 28 years, has expressed strong opposition to the sidewalk proposed for Creswell between St. Charles Boulevard and Epping Road. "The proposal to install sidewalks is a permanent and irreversible action and an urban-jungle concept that violates the essential character of our tranquil, green community," said Barbieri.

[...]
According to Barbieri, one of the residents circulated an anti-sidewalk petition at the June 3 meeting. "We're all concerned about safety, but there are other ways to solve this issue," he said. "The relative absence of sidewalks…is part of the attractiveness of the community."

(not sure why it was on the website of the Charlottetown Guardian...)
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Living/...ic-proposals/1

[Darkoshvilli]

^^Wow, that is absolute insanity.

[memememe76]

Surprised no one mentioned the UBC Hospice controversy, where residents of a nearby highrise (primarily Chinese) opposed the construction of a hospice as it was in direct violation of their beliefs and values.

Or owners in the Point Grey area opposing the extension of the Seawall due to "wildlife preservation" concerns.

Or residents along Arbutus opposing rapid transit in the area because that's where "the creme de la creme in Vancouver" live!

[Architype]

In a somewhat reversed Nimby situation there was opposition to a funeral home in Vancouver, by condo owners in new developments nearby:

The company plans to host funerals and memorials at the location, but says there won’t be any embalming or cremations done on-site.

But the funeral home’s association with death has sparked an online petition, flyers, and an angry anonymous letter to the company.

"There's a big segment of the population that doesn't want to live next to a funeral home," ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...tion-1.1333387

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Lot of "we're not Toronto"s.

I must say, there's a certain sense of gratification that comes with the notoriety of having your city strike fear into the hearts of NIMBYs across the country.

[Vertigo3000]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I must say, there's a certain sense of gratification that comes with the notoriety of having your city strike fear into the hearts of NIMBYs across the country.

I know plenty of people who are actually extremely afraid of Toronto.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Lot of "we're not Toronto"s. Have any of those idiots ever even been to Toronto!? BIG difference between one 5 story building and a forest of a few hundred 40-80 floor towers.

One woman who opposed the Lighthouse proposal (5-floor condo) in St. John's did so because it would eliminate a surface parking lot, which creates space that keeps children healthy and helps them avoid a life of crime.

It's big enough for 3-4 cars. And then she went on to say she lived for 6 years in downtown Toronto and her children never hung around with the wrong crowd there the way they're doing here.

I just don't understand how these people's minds work.

I wish we could go back to the 1970s and have a do-over. St. John's is only so rabidly anti-development because our first contemporary projects in the Downtown beginning in that decade were objectively unattractive and required the destruction of perfectly viable heritage properties - including several of the best the city had (former Ayre's Building, former Bank of Montreal Building, etc. These were Saint John-quality heritage buildings, not our plain, three-floor brick ones).

And the federal government buildings were especially brutal. Giant, red brick buildings with a single entrance along an entire city block. They even straightened Water Street East and put ground-level parking garages there. It's still a dead zone.

Water Street West was even worse. They completely bulldozed the east side of the street so that it could be doubled to four lanes, for many blocks. To this day it no longer feels like part of the Downtown, even though it was traditionally.

We just got the absolute worst of the worst when it came to contemporary development. So now, for good reason, proposal downtown = ugly, destroying our heritage, killing the neighbourhood feeling, turning us into Anywhere, Canada.

It'll take a generation of nice proposals to help alleviate that knee-jerk reaction.

[J_Murphy]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

That same project had someone claim that children wouldn't get enough sunlight because there's a playground in the area that would be partially in shadow for 10 minutes per day for half the year.

Someone opposed the same development (Tiffany Village) because they feared planes would hit them.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by vid

I love the "high rises will create crime". My neighbourhood has the most crime in my city, and do you know how many high rises we have?

None.

And then people complain "rental units will cause crime!" but the very people saying that are the wealthy suburbanites who own the property in this neighbourhood as "investments". Most of my street is owned by a handful of doctors, lawyers and businessmen, and they're all slumlords. One purposefully neglects properties to keep values down, only ever "fixing" the buildings in a way that makes them less attractive or makes them unsuitable for other uses, and asks for very high rents for the ground level retail to keep the storefronts vacant. He has town down several buildings in the past few years to store cars that he is "selling". (Some of which have been "for sale" since 2007.) It's the main reason we're in the state we're in. This neighbourhood is, for the most part, a way for wealthy, conservative leaning land owners to take money from welfare recipients. But how do you prove that this is going on, and make a case that it is against the law? Even if we had a case we'd literally be arguing against lawyers.

The buildings on this street that are owned by more responsible individuals are 100% occupied... Even a vacant lot owned by a car dealership is occupied by a charity that fixes up cars for poor people!

One thing that really irritates me is that the property tax system in Ontario actually creates incentives for this sort of thing. Vacant properties receive huge discounts on taxes. As a result its easy for big companies to sit on abandoned or partially abandoned properties for decades at detriment to the community.

If those discounts were removed, we'd see a lot less vacant storefronts in our inner cities. People would have no choice but to sell or redevelop... or undergo a forced tax sale to the municipality (if you don't pay property tax on your land, the city takes it over).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

One woman who opposed the Lighthouse proposal (5-floor condo) in St. John's did so because it would eliminate a surface parking lot, which creates space that keeps children healthy and helps them avoid a life of crime.

Wow! When people start rallying to save parking lots, you know your in trouble.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

One thing that really irritates me is that the property tax system in Ontario actually creates incentives for this sort of thing. Vacant properties receive huge discounts on taxes. As a result its easy for big companies to sit on abandoned or partially abandoned properties for decades at detriment to the community.

If those discounts were removed, we'd see a lot less vacant storefronts in our inner cities. People would have no choice but to sell or redevelop... or undergo a forced tax sale to the municipality (if you don't pay property tax on your land, the city takes it over).

Laws should be reversed: vacant properties should pay more taxes to encourage people to do something with them. Though we would also need protection from "arson".

In Ottawa, we've seen dozens of historic buildings suffering demolition by neglect. The Charles Ogilvy Building, a turn of the 20th century school, the Daly Building and a bunch of other federally owned buildings (the NCC who are sworn to protect Ottawa's past) dating back 100+ years.

Interestingly enough, NIMBY's only seem to fight for the most mundane buildings.

After fierce opposition to their demolition, the City paid to move these so that the NCC may widen Sussex Drive.


http://heritageottawa.org/en/sussex_..._road_widening

Many people opposed both of the developer's options; an overhaul of the building (reclad and addition of 4 floors) or a new building all together.

Developer opted for full blown redevelopment.


http://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/actu...-du-canada.php

But not a single person raised an eyebrow when the City approved the demolition of this masterpiece.


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1846959

The bottom front quarter of the façade will be rebuilt on the Rideau expansion.

[Daveography]

"Planes will fly into this thing all day!"

- Someone opposed to a ~30-story residential tower. At the bottom of the valley, meaning its roof would sit barely higher than a 5 story building at the top of the valley.

[Black Star]

Yeah 5 or 6 years ago I was at Mckay Ave school for the community meeting about this tower. It was painful. Actually walked out shaking my head. Guy was just going on about the possibility of a plane hitting this tower in the river Valley. There's no words.

[vid]

A lot of properties in my city are owned by a number corporation based in Ottawa. Most of them have either burned down or collapsed. All were condemned by the city due to unsuitable living conditions, and ended up being occupied by squatters before they got destroyed.

Aside from the favourable tax rates for vacant properties, the city will also put any costs of demolition or repair onto a property's listing price, so a $50,000 downtown lot that cost the city $50,000 to clear out will actually be put on the market for $100,000, with predictable results. They're all vacant.

And, since it is illegal for a government agency to sell land for below market value (as this is seen as undercutting private individuals who might be selling similar land in a similar area) the price will always be $50,000 higher than the surrounding properties and I think they even throw the interest onto it as time goes on, meaning the land slowly gets costlier and never gets improved until someone is desperate to do it. Considering my city has basically zoned a brand new downtown on brownfield across the river from the current one, I don't think we'll ever see that...

[bartolo]

This would of been about 8 years ago now. I was taking Urban and Regional Planning at Mohawk in Hamilton. We went to a planning meeting at Hamilton City Hall and they were debating about some developments. The one that struck me the most was a new development in Mount Hope. Mount Hope is about 5km outside of Hamilton on the south side, near the airport. It has a lot of newer housing. A new condo/apartment was being proposed, nothing to big. I think it was 6 stories. Their were a couple of residents that were from a nearby subdivision that were opposed to it at the meeting. They were afraid of vagrants coming to Mount Hope. I was flabbergasted and could not believe how they thought this was going to happen.

[Daveography]

^ I remember similar opposition to LRT expansion to the south of Edmonton years ago. One of my favourite arguments against it was that it would just be a train for criminals to use to access the south side of the city, and bring their criming crime ways with them.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by bartolo

This would of been about 8 years ago now. I was taking Urban and Regional Planning at Mohawk in Hamilton. We went to a planning meeting at Hamilton City Hall and they were debating about some developments. The one that struck me the most was a new development in Mount Hope. Mount Hope is about 5km outside of Hamilton on the south side, near the airport. It has a lot of newer housing. A new condo/apartment was being proposed, nothing to big. I think it was 6 stories. Their were a couple of residents that were from a nearby subdivision that were opposed to it at the meeting. They were afraid of vagrants coming to Mount Hope. I was flabbergasted and could not believe how they thought this was going to happen.

I had a discussion with someone just this past week who was against higher density condos downtown, because "we saw how well that worked in New York City in the 70s", comparing condos with $300k-$1 million dollar price tags to "the projects" from the 70s.