turini2 said:
This looks to be shocking behaviour. If you were desperate to earn money off the site, rent it out while you do design and engineering on your proposal!
Makes a mockery of the democratic planning process...
Click to expand...
what if the so called "democratic" planning process is flawed?
 
abovetoronto said:
I agree, it shouldn't be a one-off. It should be used more often. Come to think of it, I'd rather have developers reap profits than consultants/paper pushers.
Click to expand...
Most developers couldn't care less about how their developments contribute to the city, they care about spending the least amount of money and selling units for the most amount of money. That is how most developers (especially large ones) work. Without planning, our cities and environment would truly become terrible. Planning should be better (ex. hire more people to approve developments faster and to deter LPAT appeals, make regulations simpler, intensify the underutilized suburbs and transit areas) but letting politicians arbitrarily approve developments would be incredibly destructive, to a scale that most people don't understand.
 
daniel_kryz said:
Most developers couldn't care less about how their developments contribute to the city, they care about spending the least amount of money and selling units for the most amount of money. That is how most developers (especially large ones) work. Without planning, our cities and environment would truly become terrible. Planning should be better (ex. hire more people to approve developments faster and to deter LPAT appeals, make regulations simpler, intensify the underutilized suburbs and transit areas) but letting politicians arbitrarily approve developments would be incredibly destructive, to a scale that most people don't understand.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Let's assume the market is free-for-all, and you've got more supply then demand. In this situation, customers (purchasers) will become more picky leading to higher quality developments. I'm not pushing for a free-for-all situation, but the existing status quo is far from ideal too.
 
abovetoronto said:
Not exactly. Let's assume the market is free-for-all, and you've got more supply then demand. In this situation, customers (purchasers) will become more picky leading to higher quality developments. I'm not pushing for a free-for-all situation, but the existing status quo is far from ideal too.
Click to expand...
Sure, when there is more supply people become less desperate and become picky. On the other hand, it would suck if we actually had a free-for-all. Houston, for example, doesn't even have zoning and the city is a complete mess. Personally, I think letting developers build in more places that are underutilized would be the best way forward. We live in a time where huge developers control everything, so (just like in all monopolies) the quality decreases because they have no incentive to do things differently. That's why oversight is needed, along with more opportunities to build.
 
daniel_kryz said:
Sure, when there is more supply people become less desperate and become picky. On the other hand, it would suck if we actually had a free-for-all. Houston, for example, doesn't even have zoning and the city is a complete mess. Personally, I think letting developers build in more places that are underutilized would be the best way forward. We live in a time where huge developers control everything, so (just like in all monopolies) the quality decreases because they have no incentive to do things differently. That's why oversight is needed, along with more opportunities to build.
Click to expand...
We have plenty of oversight now, and where does it leave us? Do you think we have high quality developments in this city recently? Just go through each thread here on UT, where every other comment points to a disappointment.
 
abovetoronto said:
We have plenty of oversight now, and where does it leave us? Do you think we have high quality developments in this city recently? Just go through each thread here on UT, where every other comment points to a disappointment.
Click to expand...

It's either disingenuous or simple foolishness to suggest that all complaints are equal (that some lazy "it's garbage" comments have the same value as ones where members explain the issues they have with a project), or that there are similar numbers of complaints on each thread. This attack on the system is quite unlike most things we bump into here, and to try to blow it off as if it were the same is dishonest.

42
 
abovetoronto said:
We have plenty of oversight now, and where does it leave us? Do you think we have high quality developments in this city recently? Just go through each thread here on UT, where every other comment points to a disappointment.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons for that, but one of the big ones is probably architecture. Only a few secondary plans require high-quality design, and the rest of the city is a free-for-all in terms of architectural quality. Since planners don't have oversight over this except for the shapes of buildings, developers usually choose to build with cheap materials and unattractive/repetitive architectural expressions. Btw, the city recently tried to require high-quality building design in Downtown via the Downtown Plan, but the minister overruled it so now we'll keep getting more of the same.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top