Blatchford

[inclusion]

This is probably a better comment for the infill thread, but it's a natural transition so I'll put it here - the City (currently the urban planning committee but soon council as a whole) is hearing a report on barring upzoning applications for residential areas that aren't 400m or less from a major node or corridor. The idea is to densify transit-heavy areas faster, and to slow down the strain on infrastructure (especially street parking and traffic) in established, low-density neighbourhoods.

Regardless of how you feel about densification, shouldn't the appeal of mixed-use developments (like small coffee shops in residential areas) make this change a terrible idea? Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but with the increasing demand for small-scale retail spaces in low-traffic areas, wouldn't this policy kill opportunities to build on that?

I am biased because I live in the Rio Terrace area and if Uncle Glenn's pub ever closes, I will be going on a rampage. I love small-scale retail & social locations in neighborhoods.

I agree with what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate a little bit, look no further than Calgary where there are neighbourhoods that jumped on the infill train quite early. We have family down there, where infill growth has put pressure on the closest elementary school in their neighbourhood, which has 600 kids. For after-school care, you have to put your baby on the waitlist before the kid is born. I realize that is a consideration that other levels of government haven't increased capacity; however, it also speaks to the fact that in some cases, there isn't any land available to increase capacity in established neighbourhoods without the consideration of expropriating land. Planners have to consider multiple factors, and sometimes one lever reduces another, as you have pointed out.

 

[policyenthusiast]

I agree with what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate a little bit, look no further than Calgary where there are neighbourhoods that jumped on the infill train quite early. We have family down there, where infill growth has put pressure on the closest elementary school in their neighbourhood, which has 600 kids. For after-school care, you have to put your baby on the waitlist before the kid is born. I realize that is a consideration that other levels of government haven't increased capacity; however, it also speaks to the fact that in some cases, there isn't any land available to increase capacity in established neighbourhoods without the consideration of expropriating land. Planners have to consider multiple factors, and sometimes one lever reduces another, as you have pointed out.

Wouldn't enabling mixed-use zoning in residential areas increase access to childcare facilities, while also reducing traffic around the existing infrastructure?

 

[inclusion]

Wouldn't enabling mixed-use zoning in residential areas increase access to childcare facilities, while also reducing traffic around the existing infrastructure?

Yes, but at the same time, the LRT lines are long, and there are stations in less developed areas. My understanding is that they want to see the less developed areas around some stations be built out more. In theory, it would also spread development across multiple areas of the city beyond only the central mature areas.