Ervin
Active Member
I've seen scattered discussions about this, but no specific threads, so here it goes:
Everybody hates urban sprawl, there are little to no advantages of it, but it exists because for some reason there is a demand for houses in the middle of nowhere. Cities can easily stop urban sprawl, but that has consequences. So my question is; do you think cities in the GTA should start preventing urban sprawl by restricting developers from building beyond specified city limits? Or do you think other methods should be employed, or none at all?
Advantages of stopping sprawl:
Smaller carbon footprints of citizens by means of less travel and more efficient homes
People living closer to each other
Everything is closer and easier to get to
Transit systems are more effective, more necessary, and return a bigger income
Disadvantages:
Skyrocketing property costs
infrastructure may not keep up with population growth
Everybody hates urban sprawl, there are little to no advantages of it, but it exists because for some reason there is a demand for houses in the middle of nowhere. Cities can easily stop urban sprawl, but that has consequences. So my question is; do you think cities in the GTA should start preventing urban sprawl by restricting developers from building beyond specified city limits? Or do you think other methods should be employed, or none at all?
Advantages of stopping sprawl:
Smaller carbon footprints of citizens by means of less travel and more efficient homes
People living closer to each other
Everything is closer and easier to get to
Transit systems are more effective, more necessary, and return a bigger income
Disadvantages:
Skyrocketing property costs
infrastructure may not keep up with population growth