Despite NIMBY Opposition, Density is the Only Option for a Prosperous Toronto

Christopher Hume delivers a forceful argument for why density is necessary for maintaining a prosperous Toronto in the decades ahead, and why the alternative, sprawl, is environmentally unsustainable and economically ruinous.
October 26, 2012, 5am PDT | Jonathan Nettler | @nettsj
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments

Hume identifies a national justification for sprawl "on the basis that there will always be more empty fields to develop" and a deep bias against density from the many who feel development "should be stopped after they have what they want." 

Despite scary connotations with "shadowy canyons of bleak high-rise apartment buildings and over-crowded buses lurching along congested streets...density also means the museum, art galleries, film festivals, Nuit Blanche and major league sports," says Hume. "Density generates economic activity, i.e. jobs and wealth. And in the 21st century, as never before, the business of the world is transacted in large urban centres."

While some criticize Toronto's condo boom, the alternative, sprawl, "has long since reached the point where advantages are outweighed by disadvantages." And it is sprawl, after all, not density, that causes congestion. 

"What the car hath taken away," concludes Hume, "density will giveth back."

Full Story:
Published on Saturday, October 20, 2012 in Toronto Star
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email