TOareaFan
Superstar
TOareafan:
MY point of comparison is that miniscule differences in location and accessiblity is an absolutely meaningless measure of its suitability as a site for office uses in the grander context, which also suppliments the greater argument that such a level of accesiblitily is meaningful in comparison between uses, vis-a-vis office vs. residential.
and that is a valid point....but when you get down into a specific node then the points of comparison become finer. All of the office sites in this node have decent access to all of the items listed in Big Daddy's rebuttal to my flippant "it's not a very good office site comment". Big Daddy's points were good but once you are down to comparing specific sites within a node then one site is better than the other....which brings us back to my belief (and no one really has to share it) that of the office sites, in this node, this site is weaker in comparison to the others and that relative weakness probably explains why the others have gone ahead and this one hasn't...and, IMO, probably won't for a very long time.
By the time it is or becomes an issue, it is clear the planning regimes have already failed. Surely you aren't proposing to wait until something becomes an issue before acting - which is the very antithesis of planning (read forethought).
AoD
Another excellent point but it should not stop you from making site specific judgements as you go along. Note the differences and make sure before you rezone one piece of land that the reasons for it are quite site specific and appropriate and that you have good arguments for when the next guy wants to do it and you (the city) don't feel it is as appropriate there.
You can't let zoning from years/decades ago handcuff your moving forward.