03-14-2022, 03:03 PM
(03-14-2022, 01:07 PM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote:(03-14-2022, 11:38 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.
In one way the neighborhood was destroyed for any family that may have wanted to buy a house and live there. Obviously "Lester St." isn't on anyone's shopping list anymore. It was also destroyed for families who owned houses near student-occupied slums.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment. Who refused to accommodate change? Families who owned or occupied properties within walking distance of Laurier/UW? Anyone who didn't accommodate the slumification of that area?
On the other hand, the neighborhood has been reborn as a (figuirative) mecca for slum lords and developers.
Yes, the city, residents, etc. refused to build high density student housing, as a result home after detached home was taken over and converted into housing for students. The same thing is happening near Conestoga college. The residents oppose building housing for students, then complain when landlords buy out their homes to house students.
Once the neighbourhood is "destroyed" (again, only "destroyed" for some, students are still living there--not destroyed for them), there are no more to oppose change, and the area got redeveloped AFTER.
Refusing to build housing doesn't make people go away.