Lament over downtown densification (letters, April 21) ignores the need for affordable housing and environmental security.
Densification does not necessarily mean high cost. Cost is high in Sidney because the national demographic now favours geriatric baby boomers wealthy enough to please developers and more importantly let Sidney tax to accommodate its seniors’ needs. An analogy to care homes and economies of scale suffice to explain that.
We often do not know where the workers who serve us live. Nor how far and how long they have to travel to serve us. Development to house workers at all levels locally must at present be legislated, as no developers will down-build now without compulsion. We fail our young otherwise.
Densification reduces traffic, such an obvious good that objection signifies inattentiveness to the climate crisis. Quaint is more easy kept, too, when primary needs are not traffic related. The tourism that comes with traffic needs to evolve, as well, to state-of-the-art mass transit. Cars are killing us.
Apropos analogy, another for Sidney begins with late 19th century urban European, where housing and transport infrastructure have been built on to define best practice. Spared war, Switzerland remains the best-preserved example. Dense but attractive, plentiful parks, and transit for all, urban and interurban.
The demographic evolves now with a climate crisis, and as boomer numbers and wealth pass on, investment in urban densification will inevitably ensue. We’re just at the beginning of it.