City hall debate about sprawl
A TJ article entitled Sprawl or subdivision heaven? outlines the arguments for and against a west side subdivision proposal. In the end, council voted in favour of the project, though it will still need third reading.
While I like the idea of a small compact city, with lots of urban housing that supports lots of neat urban business, there is probably some merit to letting the debate on this subdivision play out.
I see some weakness in arguements against the subdivision that are based on the idea of increased municipal costs due to sprawl. As evident in the City aerial photo below, the proposed subdivision is in an area where a number of homes already require plowing and emergency services (admittedly, increasing the number of homes away from policing and fire stations would increase the call frequency to far flung areas).
I like living close to or within the city’s core and would encourage others to do so too, but a comment by the deputy mayor reported in the TJ hit the nail on the head: “Not everyone wants to live downtown and not everyone wants to live on the outskirts.”
3 comments:
True people want options as to Uptown vs suburbs but the debate was not about Uptown vs suburbs.That's how the debate was framed to make sound like the decision was a good one.The queestion raised by this project was:"Should we create a new susburb?"
This development does not strengthen/enhance/maximize existing suburbs of the City.It proposes to create a NEW suburb in an outlining area of the City limits.This is classic urban sprawl.
I agree with the above comment. This is a city of stable or negative population growth, the more we allow people to live so far from the "uptown area", the more we will necessarily lose density. This will contribute to urban blight in some areas, lack of youth in uptown neighbourhoods, decline of businesses in the Uptown area, and a more disjointed community. Yes, there is pipe in the ground in the area of the proposed development. That does not stand alone as a strong justification for allowing that development. The Mayor really fell down on this one by thinking this counts as "infill". This is about the farthest thing from infill development as you can get within the city limits.
Doesn't that critiqu assume a closed community though? If people want to live in "suburban" areas, is it not better that they do it in Saint John than out of Saint John (assuming the cost of this citizen living there is less than taxes from the new home)?
Not allowing the creation of subdivisons in the city is not going to make someone say "I better live uptown instead."
Post a Comment