Gronk!
Senior Member
Why was there a 13-0 vote for the last item (Parks and Services) while the rest of it was a 12-0 vote?
|
|
|
General Infill Discussion
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
The secret councillor, Cim Tartmell emerged from the depths to place one additional vote.
(I have no idea)
David A
Senior Member
Yes commercial and retail hubs in suburban neighbourhoods make sense, but a hub is not a monster rooming house type building in the middle of a residential block full of single family homes.
Tropical
Active Member
ChazYEG
Senior Member
He's not wrong in retail hubs being a good think for suburban neighbourhoods. While the majority of us here love condos or townhomes, a lot of people also want to have single family homes. If we can improve walkability and amenities in suburban neighbourhoods, we should do so, as it has a chain effect of reducing car dependence throughout the city....you're not serious are you?
I do think having a few corner lots in these neighbourhoods become small retail buildings (maybe with housing on the second story) would be a great thing, and wouldn't give NIMBYs much reason to take up their torches and pitchforks against it.
TAS
Senior Member
Day 2 of the infill discussion goes tomorrow at City Hall.
I'm still on the side of keeping our zoning bylaw (RS) as is in terms of height and not reducing units to 6. I don't know that it's feasible to have a tree bylaw (city admin certainly is against it) but I do wish more developers put in more effort to maintain some trees.
I walked by this infill in Ritchie tonight. The tree canopy goes to the back of this house and it's root system would have been impacted significantly when digging up foundation. Yet this amazing tree at front of the lot is still looking good.
I'm still on the side of keeping our zoning bylaw (RS) as is in terms of height and not reducing units to 6. I don't know that it's feasible to have a tree bylaw (city admin certainly is against it) but I do wish more developers put in more effort to maintain some trees.
I walked by this infill in Ritchie tonight. The tree canopy goes to the back of this house and it's root system would have been impacted significantly when digging up foundation. Yet this amazing tree at front of the lot is still looking good.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
I actually could not listen to the "discussion". It's absolutely unbearable hearing the same unemployed geezers talk about parking for hours on end.
riker
New Member
I loved the Neighbourhoods United people misapproriating a Jane Jacobs quote. Yes, Jane Jacobs opposed gentrification, but this meant not freezing neighbourhoods in time, rather allowing small scale intensification that is community driven. RS isn't perfect and needs to be refined, but one of its main advantages is enabling growth at the neighbourhood level which prevents mass displacement from gentrification.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I’m most sympathetic to the 3 stories, sideways facing 8plexes being abolished midblock.
They’re just stupid. How you “code” all of that, I’m not positive, but there is certainly some trash being built. Homes should have entrances towards the street or alley. 3 stories, midblock, between all bungalows, with the minimum setbacks and maximum coverage is just lazy and greedy. Block busting activity.
I hope they figure that out without wrecking all the good stuff.
I also want overnight parking permits brought in to pay for better snow clearing. I’m hoping all the infill parking complainers build support for that eventual move.
They’re just stupid. How you “code” all of that, I’m not positive, but there is certainly some trash being built. Homes should have entrances towards the street or alley. 3 stories, midblock, between all bungalows, with the minimum setbacks and maximum coverage is just lazy and greedy. Block busting activity.
I hope they figure that out without wrecking all the good stuff.
I also want overnight parking permits brought in to pay for better snow clearing. I’m hoping all the infill parking complainers build support for that eventual move.
kcantor
Senior Member
I wasn’t at the hearing and haven’t yet attempted to watch it on line. But I do know a few people that were and this is what some of them are saying on line:
“Yup. I was at the Urban Planning Committee meeting yesterday to speak on behalf of residents like me, negatively affected by infill. The panels of speakers were completely stacked with young male speakers who love infill! It was blatant.”
and
“Grilled Cheese Public Hearing Parties
What if you found out a large share of the pro-infill speakers at a public hearing all attended an event hosted by a councillor the night before?
Then those same people show up, organized, aligned, to speak against administration changes and that councillor asked those people questions?
Is that organic public input…or coordinated advocacy inside a process that’s supposed to be fair and open?
Public hearings don’t have to be apolitical, but they do have to be credible.
Because when hearings start to feel stage-managed, public trust takes the hit.
Transparency matters. Optics matter. Democracy depends on both”
What I can tell you is that these comments weren’t from “unemployed old geezers” and their concerns - legitimately - are much broader than just parking (not that parking is not also a legitimate concern of some).
TAS
Senior Member
I wasn’t at the hearing and haven’t yet attempted to watch it on line. But I do know a few people that were and this is what some of them are saying on line:
“Yup. I was at the Urban Planning Committee meeting yesterday to speak on behalf of residents like me, negatively affected by infill. The panels of speakers were completely stacked with young male speakers who love infill! It was blatant.”
and
“Grilled Cheese Public Hearing Parties
What if you found out a large share of the pro-infill speakers at a public hearing all attended an event hosted by a councillor the night before?
Then those same people show up, organized, aligned, to speak against administration changes and that councillor asked those people questions?
Is that organic public input…or coordinated advocacy inside a process that’s supposed to be fair and open?
Public hearings don’t have to be apolitical, but they do have to be credible.
Because when hearings start to feel stage-managed, public trust takes the hit.
Transparency matters. Optics matter. Democracy depends on both”
What I can tell you is that these comments weren’t from “unemployed old geezers” and their concerns - legitimately - are much broader than just parking (not that parking is not also a legitimate concern of some).
I listened to several groups and individuals at the hearing yesterday voice their concerns around massing, lot coverage and number of units, and today almost all the speakers are also voicing those concerns.
I'm not noticing some of those comments you shared.
There was an 11 person, well organized, coordinated presentation yesterday - not sure which side of the issue. Will find out.
Last edited:
TAS
Senior Member
roe_
Active Member
But doesn't this ignore the fact that we just had an election and all pro-infill councillors were re-elected? Based on the outcome of the election, aren't the proposed change to the bylaw a result of a small group of individuals trying to co-ordinate their advocacy contrary to what most residents want (and voted for)?I wasn’t at the hearing and haven’t yet attempted to watch it on line. But I do know a few people that were and this is what some of them are saying on line:
“Yup. I was at the Urban Planning Committee meeting yesterday to speak on behalf of residents like me, negatively affected by infill. The panels of speakers were completely stacked with young male speakers who love infill! It was blatant.”
and
“Grilled Cheese Public Hearing Parties
What if you found out a large share of the pro-infill speakers at a public hearing all attended an event hosted by a councillor the night before?
Then those same people show up, organized, aligned, to speak against administration changes and that councillor asked those people questions?
Is that organic public input…or coordinated advocacy inside a process that’s supposed to be fair and open?
Public hearings don’t have to be apolitical, but they do have to be credible.
Because when hearings start to feel stage-managed, public trust takes the hit.
Transparency matters. Optics matter. Democracy depends on both”
What I can tell you is that these comments weren’t from “unemployed old geezers” and their concerns - legitimately - are much broader than just parking (not that parking is not also a legitimate concern of some).
The_Cat
Senior Member
I wonder if there are more eight-plexes in the lower-incoMe neighborhoods.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Yes. Pencils better.