I'm not sure that's entirely true.I’m not arguing on behalf of what an ideal development would look like from a density perspective, I’m saying that when these towers are proposed, why do people have to resist with stupidity? There’s clearly a market for this tower to go up otherwise it would have not been built so then why must a group of Nimbyist assemble and give a developer a tough time over pathetic issues like privacy. You don’t see developers and the city halls in metro Vancouver cave in as much to the demands of a few mongering Nimbyist because their consistent with approving developments where sites allow for high density taller buildings. So why do people in our city still get rattled up over a 30 storey tower in the suburbs when areas like Banff trail already have ARP’s approved for tall buildings, that’s my concern. I love midrises and high rises equally and theirs rooms for both depending on the location but again my problem is not with which ones should be prioritized it’s more so with the NIMBY attitude in a city of 1.3 million people against tall structures in areas that have been already allowed for high density/tall buildings under city land use bylaws
A battle is brewing in Vancouver between a hospice society and a townhouse developer.
The fear and opposition to change is not tied to any particular geography. I agree that opposition is often grounded on false pretenses - but the attitudes here are largely consistent with elsewhere.