Reply to comment

Jan
10
2012

Neither infill nor sprawl


says:

Perhaps "infill" isn't the correct term, what I mean by it is that the development falls (as I recall, anyway) within the existing developed (residential) boundaries of Midhurst, rather than expanding those boundaries outward. This is, of course, in contrast with the Barrie annexation of Innisfil. And I use the term in contrast with the use of the term "sprawl", which (in my book) applies to development typifying the following qualities: low-density, single-use (primarily residential or big-box shopping), unsuitable for transit, etc. The term sprawl generally does not refer to whether or not a development is on greenfield; sprawl (due to land requirements) must always be built on greenfields, but the converse is not necessarily true: not all greenfield development is sprawl. As to the watersheds, it is my understanding that the Simcoe watershed is under much higher development stress than the Nottawasaga (which feeds into a much larger lake system); so when comparing watershed impact, any given amount of impact on the Simcoe watershed is proportionally much more problematic than the same amount in the Nottawasaga.

Just curious: how many of the homes on estate lots in Midhurst are 200 years old?

Reply

Your email will NOT be shown on the website.
Enter your website, blog, Facebook or Twitter URL. It will be linked from the comment.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.