As usual the planning department for the City of Prince George is “Out to Lunch” and the latest decision proves it. All that was accomplished was turning older and stately neighborhoods into eventual Ghettos. This is another reason why people like Murray Krause need to pack their bags and head for pasture next civic election, which can’t come too soon. Yikes !!

huh? Cheetos. your statement makes no sense.

By adding brand new homes you turn a neighbourhood into a ghetto? umm, no.

phje – “eventual Ghettos” – you know….like in the future. Every thing looks good when shinny and new. ;)

sorry. There are just oo many good examples of densification in medium cities. It is needed. Along with 3 ro 4 large condo buildings as well.

For example. Take a look at Kamloops’ DT living situation. There are 6 large (8 or 9 story) condo buildings DT. Why has this not been done in PG? Its the first step in a truly revitalized DT. More ppl living DT creates more business opportunities. With more businesses DT, more ppl will come DT.

When more ppl are DT then the ratio of (undesirables) goes down. I have no doubt in my mind that in there are just as many undesirables in the DT of Kamloops but they are hidden. They are hidden because there are so many more ppl downtown that it is less obvious.

When is Prince George going to be a leader, instead of a follower? Don’t we have anyone on council or the planning department that can think?

“Nothing comes without a cost” says Councillor Dave Wilbur, who points out the City will have to spend more to keep laneways clear so people can access their garage. Doesn’t the city keep the laneways clear now?

Why the exemption of some areas like North of 5th between Carney and Central, yet on the other side of Central is included North of 5th? That seems to require a better explanation.

Densification is good if its 6-7 story condo’s, but that is not what this is all about. Personally I don’t favor the smaller lot size route to accomplishing denisification.

Hardly most park on the street in these areas and don’t use their lane and back yard to park. Less vandalism and other reasons like car stays cleaner…etc

and they say this is good as many people want to downsize…well the older population that wants to downsize do not want to pay the prices they are asking nor do they want to have to climb a flight of stairs to all 3 levels….ridiculous….have two in my neighbour already and they are already fighting over fence, parking and drainage…..cant imagine what the winter months will bring….they are so close they can use the same eavetrough. Both houses have alley access and are renting out suites in the basement so needless to say the parking is overcrowded and we do not get the alley plowed in good fashion as it is….and so much for our neighbourhood…these houses do not fit into the crescents and tower over existing houses. A stupid, stupid decision.

Its one thing to allow for this type of building. Its quite another to get someone to build.

We seem to continuously forget that this town is not growing. We are now a City of Seniors, and low income earners, and many people who do not work at all. Those people in the mid age group, and who have jobs, that would allow them to build or buy a new home have already done so.

We have many housing developments either in progress, or on the books, so there is no shortage of places to build.

What’s left is very slow growth in housing in Prince George, unless something spectacular happens . Have no idea what that could be.

So I wouldn’t be too concerned about smaller lots, because it will take 20/30 years before it becomes a problem, if it become a problem.

Good points Willie. PG need high density living downtown for the working class and professionals to provide urban family living.

Those seniors that want to downsize move to Abbotsford.
Cheers

Just a simple question.
What resident(s) requested or asked for this?
I for one continue to live here in PG because it is not as dense (population or counsel members) as the lower mainland.

As far as I am concerned, if one wants to live in a high density region, move there. Stop trying to make every little burg into a mini hongcouver.

I agree Loki. And in answer to your question I doubt if any residents asked for this. It is another project put forward by the City to ensure that they have jobs for years to come.

This type of development would bring in more tax dollars for the city, which might not be a bad thing. It would also bring a quaintness to the neighborhood if done properly, but the city would have to make sure to service the lane access better than they do now.

“if done properly”
when was the last time that a counsel project was done properly?

There is an in-house engineering department plus engineering contractors, yet I have yet to see a city initiative “done properly”. oh sure, they make it work, but that is not the same as properly

Part of the problem is faith or confidence of which I personally have little to none in the current or recent past counsels.

The last actually competent mayor was Backhouse.

If the infrastructure can handle the influx not a bad issue. As for taxes, won’t really change much as a lot of the areas blocked out in blue already have small lot sizes. When we had a house in the area it was already two lots 50 by 120 but with one house on it. Some houses in the area had 3 or 4 lots that size. To make two lots into three makes no real difference to taxes as it is still one ‘lot’ with three titles. If you buy it you would have to tear down what is there and then build again in order for the city to get taxes off all the smaller lots. You see the areas listed already have houses on the lots, the smaller lot size benefits those that are still empty as they can sell more ‘lots’, but these are few and far between.

The most important thing to think of for council would be can the current infrastructure in these areas handle the added load to water, sewer, hydro, natural gas, etc, in the neighbourhoods concerned. You would think planning would have this covered but by the example of a few other bylaws they supported this is not the case at all.