Originally Posted by Uhuniau
Why should suburban neighbourhoods be immune from infill and increasing densities? That's an artificial brake on natural economic evolution. It needs to be lifted.
Fair enough, but of all the places in Kanata that a condo could be put, this location is pretty dumb. For one, it doesn't help bulk up the Kanata Town Centre's density, which is apparently required now to justify a light rail extension. These condo dwellers will likely need a car for just about everything (unless they work downtown in which case they would have bus service). If they work in the Kanata North or South business parks they'll probably just drive, as they'll have to do for everything else. Nor is this condo in or near the Kanata North business park, which could frankly do with some extra density.
It's as if Ottawa's developers can't bring themselves to put condos where they might make sense and instead prefer to put them in existing lower rise residential areas just to get a rise out of people. Parking lots though - especially large ones measured in acres - are apparently sacred territory that can't be developed into condos.
Just think about it for a moment: where have all the recent suburban condo projects been built/proposed? This one is on a former post office. The Centrepointe Drive condo is on a vacant woodlot (the last one in Centrepointe). The one further along Baseline is to replace an existing housing development. There are a couple more under construction on vacant land in Kanata (at least they're in the Town Centre boundaries) and some low-rise condo projects exist in Barrhaven, again on vacant land. There's a project on Merivale across from the Experimental Farm, and this is about the closest we get to a suburban condo project replacing a parking lot, but there really is nothing on any of the vast acreages of parking lot that we have, which we continue to build more of, as well. The purpose of intensification in practice seems to be to enable vast surface parking lots to continue to exist.