This might also be a way for large land assemblies to occur, where up-zoned properties force people to sell due to taxation, but there’s no business case for a four-plex so the buyer is a developer that will eventually build a high density building on multiple four-plex lots.
I don’t know why Victoria and Victorians have to be so antagonistic towards Langford. They are delivering significant volumes of housing, annually, but they are vilified for it non-stop by the same people championing efforts to deliver more housing. Square that.
Here’s one example of this attitude:
https://twitter.com/...7648335872?s=21
Have these people never seen the parking lots along the downtown “waterfront?” I mean, Jesus Christ you guys. Look inward for a moment.
This is a sincere question: Could Victoria not be learning something from the Langford approach? Or maybe the upzoning is a silent acknowledgement that the Langford approach is the way to go, but the route has to be convoluted via upzoning and eventual land assemblies to not outright admit it?
I don’t know what is going on but the urbanists need to chill a little, and acknowledge Victoria has a very costly and time-consuming relationship with the provision of new housing and every measure it takes to build more housing still underperforms what its own neighbours are doing.