Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs, especially right out of the gate (it does bring in some counter-narratives by the middle/end). “real concerns” is an unnecessary adjective that downplays the fact that one of these concerns appears to be TOD causing traffic and parking issues as if the alternative wouldn’t and another appears to be endangerment of seniors without a clear causal link. “established low-density neighborhoods” as if no infill/up zoning should ever take place and we should only ever build towers on farmland at the outskirts of the city where they would definitely drive high car usage and traffic for inner neighborhoods. The writer is speaking from the perspective of the project opponents, but does not make it clear that these are biased perspectives being reported on and not facts, especially with the “real” preface
Yeah, oh traffic congestion? Heaven help us!
I get it, the problem is everybody else’s cars, not their cars.
“Fuck you, I got mine.”
Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs
CBC.
As much as CBC says they don’t have a bias, they, like the Star, are the water-carriers for wealthy urban progressives. They’re okay with economic progressivism in general terms, just not in their back yard, thank you. Safe-injection site? Sure, I’m okay with that, as long as it’s not anywhere I can see it and my property taxes don’t go up.
This is as opposed to wealthy conservatives (who are usually just more economically regressive, and read the Globe & Mail or the National Post, and watch Report on Business) or poor conservatives (who read the Sun and either CP24 or a Fox rebroadcast)
Notice that there’s no economically progressive mass-media? That’s intentional: no one with the power to own media at scale wants anything to do with economic justice.
Not at all shocking that Pump Hill, one of the most affluent neighbourhoods in town, doesn’t want to see an absolutely cut and dry excellent urban density development. NIMBY jerks.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
With those sentiments out of the way, the concerned residents of Bayview, Pumphill and nearby neigbourhoods delved into the real points they wanted to make to city councillors this week about a proposed condo tower project at the Glenmore Landing shopping centre.
Councillors listened to these qualms for hours, then nonetheless voted 8-3 to sell city-owned parcels of adjacent lawn to the complex’s owners as a prelude to the residential highrise project.
It’s largely similar to the way many other highrise proposals have played out at city hall, almost any time a development threatens to bring more cars and cast shadows onto an established low-density neighbourhood.
That normally harmless monthly mailout with some blithely season-appropriate cover art, notes about upcoming casino nights or mural projects, and realtor ads?
One mild evening last November, nearly two dozen residents strongly opposed to the Glenmore Landing project elected a slew of like-minded neighbours to the board of the Palliser-Bayview-Pumphill Community Association (PBPCA).
That disclaimer clarified that this image wasn’t prepared or approved by developer RioCan or consultants, but the anti-project preservation group designed the rendering based on the proposal’s maximum heights.
The original article contains 1,356 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
