Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR
Guy's, seriously. Land Development has ALWAYS cost the existing tax base. New development now less costs to the existing tax payer then at any other point.
It's absolutely mind-blowing that people who live in old mature neighbourhoods that were developed and upgraded over the years with a massive costs to the taxpayer and now complaining about new development that costs the existing tax base a fraction of what older neighborhoods have.
|
If those old mature neighbourhoods were built on the 40s or later, maybe, but anything predating the Second World War is likely to be built to a significantly higher density than a modern subdivision, with more of the total land area covered by residences (as opposed to huge roads and parking areas, etc) than what came later.
I guarantee that my city centre neighbourhood, if replicated today on the outskirts of town (even in its original form, without modern highrises, etc) would be denser than most of today's greenfield development.
This may not be as much the case out west, where even historic neighbourhoods tend to be individual homes on relatively big lots, but it's certainly true of anywhere east of Manitoba. New developments may be dense, relative to the suburbs of the 70s and 80s, but they're not even remotely as urban-scaled as the pre-20th century parts of our cities.