jukebliss
New Member
I’m pretty new to this site, and certainly don’t consider myself an expert on what is posted here. And I hope I am not completely duplicating past posts here.
But I’m trying to understand how some of the larger forces at play in urban planning fit together.. specifically, for now, how the Places to Grow initiative works in conjunction with things like population/immigration and economic growth.
I will post my novice thoughts, and welcome other perspectives on why they do or don’t make any sense whatsoever..
As far as I understand, Places To Grow is intended to curb urban sprawl (presumably a good goal). However, it will do so by substantially increasing population in designated areas. It does appear, in fact, that there are advantages to this. And so, I have seen it's supporters respond to PTG detractors with comments such as “its the only way to go†/ “its inevitable’ / and “get used to itâ€.
Maybe they’re right, but I’m not sure that a lot of Ontarians who otherwise prefer to live in designated / urban environments enjoy being packed in like sardines. I personally also appreciate some of the existing small scale architecture, and in fact, enjoy seeing the sky once in a while, which becomes less and less possible as the scale of development increases.
My perception is that the Places to Grow Act is deemed necessary because population growth is considered a fact of life. If so, I guess this is a result of the dependency of economic growth on population increase (I’m no economic expert, but the existence of such a dependency is what I’ve managed to gather before getting bored and changing the channel / turning the page).
But isn’t population growth considered a cause of significant long term resource and environmental issues? Is it therefore actually sustainable?
Am I right at all in thinking that the inevitability of Places to Grow type density has its basis in economic growth, and that this is currently deemed to be a better option than attempting to actually slow down or curb population growth?
J
But I’m trying to understand how some of the larger forces at play in urban planning fit together.. specifically, for now, how the Places to Grow initiative works in conjunction with things like population/immigration and economic growth.
I will post my novice thoughts, and welcome other perspectives on why they do or don’t make any sense whatsoever..
As far as I understand, Places To Grow is intended to curb urban sprawl (presumably a good goal). However, it will do so by substantially increasing population in designated areas. It does appear, in fact, that there are advantages to this. And so, I have seen it's supporters respond to PTG detractors with comments such as “its the only way to go†/ “its inevitable’ / and “get used to itâ€.
Maybe they’re right, but I’m not sure that a lot of Ontarians who otherwise prefer to live in designated / urban environments enjoy being packed in like sardines. I personally also appreciate some of the existing small scale architecture, and in fact, enjoy seeing the sky once in a while, which becomes less and less possible as the scale of development increases.
My perception is that the Places to Grow Act is deemed necessary because population growth is considered a fact of life. If so, I guess this is a result of the dependency of economic growth on population increase (I’m no economic expert, but the existence of such a dependency is what I’ve managed to gather before getting bored and changing the channel / turning the page).
But isn’t population growth considered a cause of significant long term resource and environmental issues? Is it therefore actually sustainable?
Am I right at all in thinking that the inevitability of Places to Grow type density has its basis in economic growth, and that this is currently deemed to be a better option than attempting to actually slow down or curb population growth?
J