27
submitted 1 year ago by RehRomano@lemmy.ca to c/vancouver@lemmy.ca
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

...restricting density to only a handful of neighbourhoods ... puts them in high demand and drives their prices up.

This sentence should be clarified.

I think it's true but there's more than one factor.

--Low density housing in areas zoned for high density becomes more valuable because of the potential for redevelopment.

--Inadequate supply of constructed high density housing means higher prices for all types of housing.

I generally agree with the column and support higher density across the board. One of the major political hurdles is always 'but my parking!' and 'think of the congestion!'. So I think it's important to prioritize densification in areas where transportation infrastructure has extra capacity or is easily scalable. And where neighborhoods are of not fully walkable yet, on the cusp of walkability. I also think Evo car share is a great service for making car ownership more optional.

[-] CyanFen@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

What about the adverse mental and physiological health effects of living in densely populated zones? Pollution (even if cars didn't exist) in almost every major city is above safe limits for people, let alone the critters that also call cities home.

[-] rgb3x3@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

It's not the density that is the problem. It's the cars. If we could reduce car use in these densely-packed cities, we'd find that the air and noise pollution would drop dramatically.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Further, people who live in cities tend to be healthier than those that don't. Driving everywhere and constantly being in traffic is not good for you mentally or physically.

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
27 points (93.5% liked)

Vancouver

1412 readers
3 users here now

Community for the city of Vancouver, BC

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS