Good planning on the part of City Hall and local developers? Hell no.
However, it’s making a slow, hard comeback (by 2075 it should really be something), for several reasons, one being “the numbers and income levels of those living in the downtown.”
(Please read ‘Addressing downtown’s negative perception’ by Sean Meyer, in today’s issue of The Londoner, London’s community newspaper).
But even the few positive gains in the core give off a certain smell to some observers.
J. Congdon today writes (in The Londoner’s ‘Letters’ section):
“Clearly this growth initiative (downtown) is aimed at people between 30 and 45, earning enormous salaries and able to afford to live in the high-end apartments and condos recently constructed in the downtown area. Contractors can sell to this clientele and are not interested in bright, moderately-sized one and two-bedroom apartments where people with an annual income of less than $100,000 can share in the many benefits and pleasures of downtown living. Too bad, but that’s the way it is.”
Personally, I think that sucks - if it’s true.
["A downtown worth saving": photo link to urbanity]
The downtown should be home to people with a wide range of incomes and interests. Besides expensive condos there should be a healthy selection of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments in my price range (yeah, I make a lot less than $100,000 annually).
I’d like to know if J. Congdon is right.
As years go by, will the downtown squeeze out the little guy?
Will it become a fortress for the rich, a playground only for those with fat wallets?
Help me out here.
***
Isn’t the downtown perfect for 700 - 900 sq. ft. apartments, so that people can see the benefits of a ‘live small and prosper’ lifestyle?
In a small apartment, people only have room for so much stuff, which is a good thing, right?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment