4 ms·

> If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles. I mean you could build these towers

> If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles. I mean you could build these towers elsewherez perhaps even demolishing some existing single family dwellings. Youve made a bit of a false dichotomy here.

jkestner 5y ago
Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see skyscrapers out in the suburbs? The whole deal here is that this project happens only because 1) the Squamish got some of their land back, and it's in an urban area with all the infrastructure one could want, and 2) as reserve land, it’s not subject to the city’s zoning laws, so they YIMBY'd a forward-thinking project.
epistasis 5y ago
Could you point to this other plot of land? This land is Squamish land, which is the only reason it's getting built. Otherwise greedy neighbors would block it.
- admax88qqq 5y ago
  What? You said it's either build this or build thousands and thousands of homes sprawled across many miles. Where's the land for those thousands of homes coming from?
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Building sprawl on green fields is the default, it's legal nearly everywhere. Head out past the current exurban boundaries, and it's easy to plop down acres of single unit housing structures. These tall buildings are illegal nearly everywhere, and most importantly, they are illegal where they make sense to build, near job centers. This difference, between what is legal and what is illegal to build, is why the alternative to these towers is sprawl. There is no other plot of land where they could be built, but people still need housing.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    It's bought, and developed in ways that would/will not be stoppable by regular NIMBY-style activity, because the SFH etc. model is well inside current zoning.
capeterson 5y ago
This is not really a false dichotomy. The only other option would be to delay/cancel this project to just do the same thing in the same way somewhere else, which isn't really that different of an option. For your example, it is almost literally impossible to destroy enough SFH's to build skyscraper apartments (where do these people go?) even if these SFH lots were somehow also zoned for massive skyscrapers (which they are certainly not). I think your example is not necessarily a bad idea either, it's just an impossible idea. Nowadays we just can't simply displace thousands of people and then build structures in areas that aren't zoned for those structures.

jkestner 5y ago

Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see skyscrapers out in the suburbs? The whole deal here is that this project happens only because 1) the Squamish got some of their land back, and it's in an urban area with all the infrastructure one could want, and 2) as reserve land, it’s not subject to the city’s zoning laws, so they YIMBY'd a forward-thinking project.

epistasis 5y ago

Could you point to this other plot of land? This land is Squamish land, which is the only reason it's getting built. Otherwise greedy neighbors would block it.

admax88qqq 5y ago
What? You said it's either build this or build thousands and thousands of homes sprawled across many miles. Where's the land for those thousands of homes coming from?
- epistasis 5y ago
  Building sprawl on green fields is the default, it's legal nearly everywhere. Head out past the current exurban boundaries, and it's easy to plop down acres of single unit housing structures. These tall buildings are illegal nearly everywhere, and most importantly, they are illegal where they make sense to build, near job centers. This difference, between what is legal and what is illegal to build, is why the alternative to these towers is sprawl. There is no other plot of land where they could be built, but people still need housing.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  It's bought, and developed in ways that would/will not be stoppable by regular NIMBY-style activity, because the SFH etc. model is well inside current zoning.

capeterson 5y ago

This is not really a false dichotomy. The only other option would be to delay/cancel this project to just do the same thing in the same way somewhere else, which isn't really that different of an option. For your example, it is almost literally impossible to destroy enough SFH's to build skyscraper apartments (where do these people go?) even if these SFH lots were somehow also zoned for massive skyscrapers (which they are certainly not). I think your example is not necessarily a bad idea either, it's just an impossible idea. Nowadays we just can't simply displace thousands of people and then build structures in areas that aren't zoned for those structures.