The Editor,
Port Moody council and the city’s residents have been made aware of my concern about the level of density being encouraged around the transit stations.
I thought — naive me — that somebody might listen, but no.
Council are now quite happily trotting out, along with Suterbrook, another two proposals that go down the same garden path: the fire hall and works yard sites and St. Johns Street developments.
With details coming out, the proposals that council are considering and attaching the label of high-density to become a little bit clearer. They are much, much worse than already thought. As simple population numbers don’t seem to do the trick, how about comparisons?
The levels of density proposed at these highrise locations are seven times that of central London and Mexico City, 10 times New York and Delhi, four times that of one of the most congested cities in the world, Mumbai, and six times that of West End/downtown Vancouver.
The above three development proposals are the most recent to have been introduced by council and, upon examination of their density levels, one startling change is obvious. Port Moody council has introduced an entirely new level to high density via transit-oriented development (TOD).
We have yet to hear what TOD really means in terms of how much population intensity we think is proper to justify the transit stations and ensure their viability. What that means in terms of bodies and what they live in is anybody’s guess or council’s interpretation, but they must be enormous if the three new proposals are anything to go by.
Come on, Mr. Mayor and council, what’s the real reason for this unexplained behaviour? Are you really listening to the electorate?
The town must continue to evolve. You have that right, but with some sanity. Transparency and full disclosure are the rights of every resident. Please oblige.
Jim Allan, Port Moody
