Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Is this the best letter ever written on what is really behind high-density on North Shore?

                                             Read more: North Shore's essence squandered

                                 


 Why haven't the North Shore's politicians and municipalities ever opted to permanently put into place the necessary bylaws, zoning regulations and legalities that will ensure the protection and preservation of the heritage and character of its original homes and single family neighbourhoods, or the original mature native trees, lush landscapes and prolific gardens that once proliferated on the streets of all its communities?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Best letter" is a matter of opinion. How is reserving zoning for heritage and single-family housing sustainable? Who is going to maintain those heritage homes? It isn't cheap. Keep the best examples and get rid of the rest. We don't need to save every old house at the expense of everything else.

I like how this blog completely ignores the articles and letters that promote density and sustainability. Biased much, John?

Anonymous said...

"Density and sustainability"

Oxymoron

Anonymous said...

Actually it isn't. If you seriously understood the issues, you'd know that. Here's a question for you, how much agricultural land would have been saved had we grown up and not out? I'm not speaking of the Fraser Valley here, but the North Shore. My own neighbourhood was was acres or orchard, lost to rows of large yards and sprawling one level houses. How much arable land has been lost? I care far more about that than I do 'heritage' buildings. If the emphasis had been on sustainability, those suburban tracts would have never been built. Instead, apartment blocks clustered around the town centres would have been built. The single family home is expensive and wasteful.

Anonymous said...

To first poster - can't say I've seen any articles promoting density lately. The density in the City of North Van is not density done well. It's cramming in as much as you can to make the developers happy. Why is that? is being asked more and more.

Anonymous said...

Where exactly is this density being crammed in? I see density increasing along transportation corridors. Where would you have it? This density does belong along the Lonsdale corridor, and the East-West transportation corridors in order to take the pressure off the single-family neighbourhoods. I see infill, in the form of carriage houses, suites and duplexes occurring at various locations throughout the city. Very appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. I wonder how many people who are railing against density are living in multi-family dwellings? Usually these folks are railing against development only to save their views. Where are our children and grandchildren going to live as single-family homes become completely out of reach, financially? The prices aren't going to go down, regardless of what you do - it's all supply and demand. We need to start being smarter about what we supply.

Anonymous said...

In answer to the question: "Why has the general populace gone along with all that has been and continues to be squandered, the very essence of that which gave the North Shore its uniquely rare, iconic look?"
The general populace has not gone along with it. They have given up as the Mayors and Councillors, like Buchanan, plug their ears and go: "Nah nah nah nah... we don't want to listen to you..."

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the general populace has not given up! The general populace is in general agreement with what is going on, otherwise the Mayors and Councillors would not have been elected! If the populace were as upset as you seem to think they are, you'd see different people sitting on council. If you're going to deceive people, at least try to do it intelligently.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that there is no planning going on. Boring towers, developers building more consistently than zoning allows. Spot zoning, no consistent intelligent plan for the City. Staff has been there too long, time for a change of vision. Right now there is none.

Anonymous said...

Some food for thought:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Urban+Planning+City+needs+high+quality+density+that+affordable/6743457/story.html

and:

http://www.vancohttp://www.vancouversun.com/business/Urban+Planning+City+needs+high+quality+density+that+affordable/6743457/story.htmluversun.com/news/todays-paper/Sprawl+clock+illustrates+loss+green+space+Metro+Vancouver/6743377/story.html

Anonymous said...

Not to keen on some original species trees retained here and there.

Hemlocks and cottonwoods need a forest around them to help them break the strength of high winds.

When we cut down the forest to build housing and retain a few of these here and there they have no strength tow withstand high wind.

A neighbour's hemlocks blew over into my property causing damage and risking life.

Cottonwoods came over and destroyed my friend's roof.

As far as I'm concerned leave the original species in the forest or large parks and only ornamentals should be permitted in developed residential neighbourhoods.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:14

Obviously intelligence is not a word in your vocabulary. Since when did the voter turnout of 20 per cent lead you to believe that the people were onside with the incumbents?

We must get people to pay attention to municipal politics.

Current politicians do not want this to happen.

Anonymous said...

Why stoop to insults, 12:18? Completely unnecessary in any discussion. I was critical of your agreement, not you personally. We can disagree with each other and remain civil. I see the lack of voter turn-out as an indication that people are generally satisfied (or perhaps indifferent to) the status quo. To get those people to vote would take something that really shakes their confidence. The current development of the City or District is not (in my opinion) that issue. If it were, we'd see more people at the polls.

Anonymous said...

that should be argument, not agreement...

Anonymous said...

I use to vote but have not for years. I find local government self-serving, incompetent, lacks focus, and has lost sight of their priorities.

I dislike government for these reasons. When I dislike something I don't become involved.

Griffin said...

And then, pray tell, do you ever expect to see changes. Apathy favours the status quo. If you're hot happy with the way things are, then speak/act up, otherwise we're destined to promulgate the past. Your attitude is why things never seem to change. Shame on you.

NorthVanCityVoices said...

And for those who aspire to change the usual way of doing business, contact northvancityvoices@yahoo.ca.