
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
Another example from Washington is the state's 'growth management act' which makes it harder for cities to grow so there's less space for people, less supply of housing.
As far as I can see (from a ten thousand mile distance) the GMA isn't a bad initiative. The execution may be bad, but the idea sounds alright. From the Washington State website:
The Growth Management Act was adopted because the Washington State Legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the quality of life in Washington.
The GMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans and implementing them through capital investments and development regulations.
Public life in cities is a concern for the entire community of their inhabitants, not the preserve of investors, builders and property developers. Accessibility, the quality of public spaces (nature, landscape or cityscape, the availability of services and shops, public transport, educational establishments and all sorts of other communal issues) should weigh in.
Of course this makes certain options (like low income housing) more difficult, just as it makes other options (developing parks, shopping malls or entertainment centres) more attractive. So be it, after all it's the inhabitants' call if they want their city to maintain or develop a particular character. What I like most about it (on paper) is that it promotes local and regional variety instead of centrally planned development.
So please enlighten me, what is wrong with it?
Bookmarks