I am actually *not* against high-rise condominiums. In fact, I am all *for* high-rise neighbourhoods, like the one you described. I am against a single high-rise in an otherwise low-rise neighbourhoods (in other words, I am against using a highrise or two to get population density number in otherwise sprawled neighbourhoods. A better alternative is to achieve the same population density by allocating more land to mid-rise).

For instance, I think the superstore plaza is a travesty. It is right next to the GO station and is not surrounded by single family homes. It should’ve been tall residential buildings so people could walk to the GO station. Likewise, the Thompson / Main intersection for the new library is also a horrible design. A better alternative would be to build a high-rise residential building with first few floors dedicated for the library. Again, it would put more people in walking distance from GO. These areas are in our ‘core urban centre’ that we are trying to intensify.

I actually gave the town written feedback on its official plan asking it to reduce number of parking it requires from neighbourhood plazas and increase number of trees. I put some pictures on my latest blot post, check them out: http://www.zhamid.ca/info/urban-streets-and-parking-lots/

I hope it clarifies where I stand.

Zeeshan Hamid

I believe that this is a great example to follow.

I am personally completely against suburban style plazas with 100-s of parking spots (e.g. upcoming Derry/Scott plaza or Indigo/Mexx plaza in North east end). I believe that following urban type design will force people to walk/bike/take public transport due to inconvinience of driving.
In the worst case scenario, all parking should be burried underground with stores built on top. (yes, it would cost more to build), but Milton could provide insentives (by way of DC discounts) for land intensive development vs. sprawling designs.