Cars always get considered first, how could there be a war on cars? Is this like the war on Christmas where there isn’t actually one but entitled people who want all of the considerations to be only for them think that they’re being persecuted so they claim it’s real?
I’ve been to Calgary. If there’s a war on cars there, the cars are definitely winning.
Lmao have you seen Calgary? I think cars are doing just fine.
So if someone wants to rent/buy one of these apartments, they will be mandated by law to also cover the cost of parking stall even if they literally don’t want it and won’t ever use it? Makes no sense.
It’s worse. Parking stalls take up extremely valuable land area that could be used to build on instead. The developers believe that they can fill a 44 unit apartment building with only 12 parking spaces, which is only 1 space for nearly every 4 units. Most parking bylaws I’ve seen require 1.5 parking spaces per unit, which means this building would need at least 66 spaces by law; so many that they would occupy the same land needed for the actual building that the spaces are serving. This is urban infill, but the arguments against the parking variance sound as though we’re talking about a property on the edge of the city. Minimum parking requirements set an arbitrary upper limit on how many units you can build on a given parcel as they fight for every square meter.
Yup. Welcome to the regulation problem that developers complain about. You can physically build all kinds of things, but it can get really hard legally to build anything that’s not a mcmansion.
Usually it’s death by a thousand cuts like this. Sometimes there’s one big factor too, like Vancouver’s 100k/unit utility hookup fee.
Now that they’re done bringing back single-family zoning, NIMBYs have to look for another target.
“By framing it as a war, we are moving the conversation to a negative place where it assumes how people live. It’s not our job to assume how people live, it’s our job to give them the opportunity to live how they want to live.”
Yes, but I’m pretty sure bringing the debate to a negative place and assuming how people should live is the point.
To think that we could have more progressive councillors if the more progressive types didn’t misread the moment and run as a municipal party.
The success of certain candidates was largely because of a rejection on the new municipal party system the provincial government put in place, and independent candidates faired much better than those aligned with a party.
Genuinely think had it not been for the terrible arena deal that Gondek would likely still be mayor. Farkas may not be the best, but honestly I’m just glad he seems to be a genuine guy and that we avoided Sonya Sharp.
