What's wrong with intensification?

What is the problem with intensification? I don't think it is that we don't want to live near each other. I don't think that it is that we will suffer from the traditional outcomes of overcrowding -- cholera or other infectious diseases.
I think the problem with intensification is that it is the excuse for anything someone else wants to do at my expense.
I've lived in very densely populated places. When I had an apartment in Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro in the early seventies, this was the second most densely populated place in the world (even greater than anywhere in Hong Kong). Density is not the problem in itself.
In Copacabana there were virtually no buildings of less than 10 storeys (and in my day, only one in the whole area of more than 14 storeys). Now there is a subway line through the neighbourhood and development has gone higher.
But in Ottawa we have a different situation. Here dense development is a prize awarded to a specific property owner who takes advantage of any available infrastructure. That first applicant is granted the privilege to use what infrastructure exists (pipe capacity under the street or space for transportation). Can that single applicant be accommodated? Yes, but any further development will require infrastructure to be reinforced.
So the prize goes to the first applicant. He/she cleans up and the costs are left for those who follow.
Is it over-development or over-intensification? No but it forestalls further development because the infrastructure has to catch up, not at the expense of the initial applicant but of those that follow and of the citizens at large.
For an Ottawa example, what proportion of the development potential of that corner of Westboro was consumed in the development of the Metropole complex? What proportion of the development potential of the area along the north shore of Dows Lake is being consumed by the many tall buildings proposed for there? Who will pay for the Dows Lake subway station needed to cope? Who will pay to rebuild the water and sewage lines to serve that level of development.
Just because I might not want to live on the 45th floor of a building is not a reason to object. But what is the effect of such construction on the surrounding area or on taxpayers across the city?
.Bob

Not just wording, how are decisions made?

As we consider the revision of the Official Plan for Ottawa, our attention is drawn to the specific wording of the plan. But just as important is the procedures by which the wording is put into practice.
I have argued for some time that the interpretation of land-use planning issues in Ottawa is dominated by the development approvals staff of the Planning Department.
The aspect that particularly appalls me is that they produce for the members of Council (those who have the responsibility with making decisions) only one recommendation.
The fact is that there is almost always a range of possible choices from which the final decision-maker is to choose. This is the rule for federal public servants in drafting Memorandum to Cabinet. The public servant (and indeed the Minister carrying forth the topic) must present a range of possible decisions. There may be an obvious decision to take (do X) but the alternatives (do Y or do nothing) must also be considered.
So while we have a brief break while staff works on the details of the wording to produce for revision of the Official Plan, this could be an opportunity for us to step back and consider the procedure by which decisions are made.
Bob

Is it a matter of fighting City Hall?

Cynicism is like a disease. It spreads from person to person. The more the citizen is ignored or snubbed, the nastier the comments become.
In spite of the problems in making your views known, this is no time to stop speaking out.
For the first time in a while, the media is interested in the chasm that has opened up between citizens and their city government. This means that media outlets are potential allies in turning around our city and making it responsive to citizens.
Is there a great conspiracy afoot? I don't think so.
I think that elected officials and city staff do not understand how their actions have alienated part of the citizenry.
I think that what our Mayor and Councillors believe is that there was too much discussion, too much dissention in the 2006-2010 period. They honestly believe that most residents want to relax and let someone else take care of things. Keep discussion short. Don't ask disturbing questions.
Is the expression still -- "chill out"?
With the master planning documents under review, with the question of public engagement under study, with a new report on inter-provincial transit hot off the press, this is the time, more than ever, for citizens to speak up.
The fact is that, having a wide range of opinions expressed, will lead to better decisions being taken. This will lead to better outcomes for everyone.
Bob