Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg
Why are they allowed to choose? Shouldn't the city be the one saying they have to go with the layout that creates a street wall (which allows for retail) instead of a parking lot along Pembina?
|
Because the city has no restrictions forcing developers to build right at the street. They're the ones fronting the money for the project and can decide what they want to do within the confines of the current zoning. Personally I don't think it's necessary to create a canyon on Pembina, especially south of Bishop. Putting these types of restrictions might make it less enticing to developers that are pushing Pembina's density up, which is a bigger priority in my opinion. If we start running out of one storey strip malls with oversized lots then maybe we can revisit the zoning and encourage parking at back and street facing buildings, but currently there's plenty of those to go around on Pembina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg
For me I just get more upset when new developments go up on Pembina between Taylor and Bishop, because I just think wow imagine if RT actually ran where originally planned on Pembina and all the stops in the stretch were actually used by people that that move into the area.
|
The busses that currently run up Pembina do a great job serving those buildings with frequent service and closely spaced stops. A proper RT route along the tracks with stations properly spaced apart (read: far) wouldn't serve many of the current residents and would require feeder routes on Pembina as it is. I see it as a plus that Pembina is densifying in the absence of a RT route at their doorstep, while infill in the Parker lands and Sugar beet lands are strongarmed into denser development as a result of it being TOD.