03-14-2022, 06:34 PM
(03-14-2022, 03:03 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.
I would say that “destroyed” neighbourhoods are also bad places for students to live. The various problems associated with houses turned into overfull rooming situations make the area into a party town that I can’t imagine any serious student wanting to live in.
By contrast, the low- and mid-rise apartments that have been built that last few years keep the parties in the individual apartments. The overall area just feels like an area that has apartment buildings, not an area that has formerly-nice houses festooned with garbage and in poor repair.
In a sense it’s still destroyed, just as 1860s Toronto has been almost entirely destroyed, but in a way that leaves a different but still useful and desirable neighbourhood in its place.
Every planner needs to have that last sentence tattooed on their forearm: “Refusing to build housing doesn't make people go away”. The trick is that the required action is not to allow single family homes into the suburban infinity, but rather to allow denser forms of housing in the already-urbanized area.