 |
| Tom Dishlevoy's "small house" drawing on Facebook |
This morning I caught the following exchange based on a drawing from the Tom Dishlevoy-led CV Living City Challenge project. The drawing I saw was about small houses. Here are the comments:
Bethany Pearce YAY! So passionate about smaller/smarter houses! Here's a great book for you when you have a little spare time. I devoured this book and fell in love...http://www.littlehouseonasmallplanet.com/ also - this interview with the author is great: |
Dwight Hales When large lots are in-filled, where will in-city small-scale agriculture be done? |
Linda Ritchie on roof tops is my wish |
Tom Dishlevoy Small scale can be done everywhere including street boulevards and front yards and even roof tops. One component of our CV Living City Challenge design is to start using all of our ALR land more effectively. We actually don't need to farm our city lots to be self sufficient in food in the Comox Valley. We have more than enough land for the current 65,000 population if we use it for its intended purpose - but we are not doing so right now. We very much enjoyed learning about our local agriculture from the local experts in the Valley. |
James Street Port Alberni was building some small housing on in-fill lots over the last decade - stopped at the end of the last building boom - but ended up with some great designs and helped tp increase the population of their downtown - worked to increase evening business for downtown merchants because the population wasn't five km out of the city center. many people walked to work and school as well. |
David Stapley Will these small houses may offer an alternative to people who do not want to live in a duplex or triplex but achieve similiar densities? |
Leslie Eaton Roof tops? That's hilarious! I bet my apple, plum and pear trees would thrive on rooftops - seriously why all this urban density in a place where we actually have land to build and develop (or, here's a concept - NOT DEVELOP? I love my large-ish lot of land in the middle of suburbia Comox where we have large protected (and some unfortunately unprotected) greenspaces and trails through neighbourhoods to facilitate walking and biking). I grow peas, cucumbers, zucchini, beets, peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, squash (and aforementioned plums, pears and apples) and have flowers and a huge maple tree. I'm all for secondary suites and healthy living but high density in a place where most of us bought our homes because we already love they way it is. Although changing because of a desperate lack of land is understandable but in this area where we have so much space to build and develop sounds more like change for change's sake. (and we have limited resources and infrastructure already (water, sewage treatment or so the CVRD reminds us every time there is a water restriction) so why up the demand by upping the density?) |
Morrison Creek Trees might not thrive on roof tops but if we had small houses on a normal lot then more people would be able to have large gardens for food and flowers. If we don't densify then all the greenspace that we enjoy will become crowded lots full of large houses and our quality of life will suffer. |
Leslie Eaton If we create higher density then property values tend to skyrocket making the parkland too valuable to keep from developing. In Portland and surrounding areas one acre went from $20K to $200K inside of a decade, it made owning any land/real estate unobtainable for most food production in the area. Plus as a conservation issue, the CVRD constantly reminds us to reduce and conserve...how would a higher density be doing anything other than using more resources like water processing and sewer. I believe there is a greener solution than just adding more density by building yet more housing. I guess I am just one of those crazy people who don't believe that development always equals progress. |
Morrison Creek If we don't densify existing neighbourhoods as Tom suggests then how do we accomodate all the new people coming to the Valley without losing our greenspace? |
David Stapley This is all about choices...It is possible to say no more development, no more building. If we do this the prices we see now will seem a bargain in 5 to 10 years because the market demand for housing will increase without an increase in supply leading to prices skyrocketing. If this happened the Comox Valley would maintain its green spaces but the community would become a very different kind of place, evetually a rich enclave that me and my childred could not afford. (this is what Whistler did, check out their prices). Continuing with large lot development will lead to urban sprawl destroying ecosystems, and increasing vehicle traffic and air polution. So what to do? Densify, with creative buidling and urban design with the goal of maintianing greenspace and INCREASING our quality of life including space for gardening. To do this is more difficult, requires unconventional thinking and choices to get us there- but it is possible. If we look around for space within existing municipal boundaries we will find room for gardens (might mean less lawns!, might mean community gardens included in our parks that are now dedicated 100% for sport fields, digging up large parking lots, planting boulevards,..... |
Andrew Gower If down town Courtenay, Cumberland and Comox were all 5 storey mixed use development, we would be able to accommodate considerable growth without losing much of anything... |
David Stapley Imagine the benefit to downtown businesses if this kiind of developemnt occured. Downtowns would be vibrant and busy....cafes, entertainment venues, cool shops would spring up and STAY IN BUSINESS.... |
Sheila McDonnell Current policies of building on cheap land just outside the limits benefits those land owners at the expense of the one's who have paid tax all those years . And it spreads out the "common" burden of transit, etc for those areas on the people in the core. One way to control escalating property values is to take some of the real estate out of the speculative market by using co-op and social housing. Housing should be a right - the provision of price-stabilized options helps moderate speculation. And , we can do some urban gardening at schools and other public (and private) facilities. let's have edible landscaping instead of rhododendrons (native of Nepal) and Carpet roses. |
Leslie Eaton we already have super nice and creative areas here; cafes, theatres, entertainment venues and cool shops and with great business plans they have remained in business. (downtown Comox has Otters, Smitty's, Cafe Amantes, Jan's Travel, the Rocky Mountain Cafe, the Used Book Store, The Lorne and more that have been in business for years). I am not against change but if you think that by making the area 'denser' is going to keep prices down historically speaking it has done the opposite everywhere it has been implemented as a city plan. Again, we are told by the regional district that we have to conserve our water, by bc hydro that we must conserve energy, and everywhere we are told to recycle and demand less by purchasing less - all of which I totally support, it is hypocritical to think that if we build more and develop more that we are conserving anything. In the end we are still just creating a system of buying and using more resources. Everything here is reasonably close together as it is, and although the transit system could be improved it still exists and runs as an option for some to be greener about their transportation options. There are literally tons of lots for sale in Comox alone that have been empty and up for sale for years. The problem lies in that property values are already too high in the shopping district of Comox. Adding density is only going to put pressure on the few green spaces left inside the town to be developed because property values will spiral. I have lived here a long time, and when it was time to buy I chose Comox because of its green spaces, it is quiet and friendly here. The parks are lovely and we use them all of the time, the shops are good and well, we are close enough to Courtenay that we can go there if we want (although I didn't all weekend). I am feeling like, "If it ain't broke, why are people trying to fix it?" And I agree about not buying huge acreages and sitting on them waiting to rezone and develop them, for that matter, take a look in Comox, there is plenty of land up for sale already and also homes for sale for that matter. The problem is that *who* is going to take on a project of affordable housing on one of these locations and sell it at a reduced profit? I don't see many developers who would do that, most want to make as much money as possible out of any project - and I wish there were those who develop in an altruistic manner! (on a nice aside; I have rhodos *and* edible landscaping - my flowers have been in my yard longer than I have owned my home and it would be a shame to rip them out when they grow alongside my edible lavender and nasturtiums. |
Wayne Bradley I mean no disrespect, but Leslie's arguments against densification really amount to "I'm alright, Jack". On the one hand, Leslie, you want to stop people from coming here... David has pointed out what happens then.... the whole community becomes gentrified and poor seniors can't afford the taxes on the homes they've always lived in and youth are forced to move away because housing is too espensive. The whole Valley become Crown Isle. And yet, on the other hand you want to promote large lot development because we all love the space and we have lots of land in the valley. This idea is the most costly in terms of providing services and the most destructive of the environment. I live on a 5 acre lot size development on Railway ave at the back end of Merville. No development like this should ever be allowed again. We bought it 35 years ago when we knew nothing about the real impact of sprawl like this on communities and would never live in such a circumstance if we didn't already have everything invested here. It's easy to see now that all of the people in a ten lot area around me could fit onto one of these 5 acre parcels and use exactly the amount of land we now use (less than 1/2 acre each), while leaving the other 9 lots untouched. We would have eliminated the need for separate septic systems, driveways, power lines and even fences and done a great service to the flora and fauna. We get poor service for our roads (at great expense to every taxpayer in the valley); we have stretched the postal system more than it likes (again, at the expense of the services everyone else gets), and we will never get cable tv out here (which is fine by me... Incidentally my friend at Shaw tells me that is because people in Merville are not dense enough! ) . Poorer service and more cost to everyone.. not a good deal. These are the very same impacts in an urban setting that can be mitigated by densifying the core areas. Leslie's objection to densification are only realistic if we can dictate that the population cannot grow, and since few want want to become Whistler or Crown Isle Valley, then where do we put new folks or even older ones like me who are tired of driving 15 miles to enjoy any of the community's cultural life? If we multi-storied parts of Courtenay and Comox there would still be lots of large lot properties available. This is a great conversation...let's scare up a little money and bring in the best public educator in community development there is so we can expand the reach of these ideas. maybe that person is already here? |
NOTE:
These comments were generated between Friday, Jan 28, 2011 at about 2:30pm and about 1am Monday, Jan 31, 2011. Please click on this link to Tom Dishlevoy's drawing (on Facebook) to view the original posts, and to add your comments. If you're not on Facebook, leave comments here. I'll be posting a link to this CV2050 post on Facebook as well.
The sustainability conversation and civic elections November 2011
The opinions expressed here reflect part of the "sustainability conversation" that needs to happen in the Comox Valley in this year of civic elections. We have a host of development and growth challenges facing this community. Some organizations – CV Living City Challenge (these folks need a blog badly - they're doing such amazing work and it's locked inside Facebook), Comox Valley Land Trust, Comox Valley Conservation Strategy are examples – are showing the kind of leadership we need to address these challenges and sustain the quality of life we enjoy in the Comox Valley.
If your quality of life matters to you, please take some time every week to check out what's happening in the sustainability conversation online. Make your own posts and comments. Write letters to the local newspapers (in our town, traditional print media is still the way most people get their news, and nothing attracts attention like "letters to the editor"). You might also want to join us on Facebook as we work to "Get the sustainability vote out" for civic elections on November 19, 2011.
hanspetermeyer
31 January 2011
Posts
