When a development proposal is trotted out, an oft-voiced concern by opponents is that it's going to change the neighbourhood, and not for the better. It's often a case where the locals like what's there and aren't interested in seeing it altered, at least not to the extent the developer is suggesting.
That's a perfectly understandable reaction given people make choices about where to live based on a number of factors, and if those circumstances are to change to a demonstrable extent, then it can have an impact on their quality of life.
I get it, and I often feel that way too, but I also wonder about the validity of the argument, particularly if you follow it back in time.
I recognize that something had to change in the neighbourhood in order for the house I live in to be constructed. The same applies to all the other buildings in town that provide us with shelter, shopping, services and much more.
We like them, or at least accept them, and are generally comfortable with how the area has evolved, but at some point in time every one of them signaled a change. Whether a building was constructed on property that had never housed a structure, perhaps even on land that once upon a time was farmed or logged, or something was torn down to make way, the undertaking irrevocably altered the landscape.
This happened here with head-spinning frequency in the 1960s and into the 1970s after the George Massey Tunnel replaced the ferry as the way across the Fraser River. Delta circa 1959, with about 8,000 people, was unrecognizable just two decades later after its population had swollen tenfold. It had become a completely different place to those who were here before the crossing.
The ironic part about present-day debates over land use is that often times it's the post-tunnel sprawl that's at issue. Yes, the development that forever altered the municipality's landscape is now being protected so the face of Delta doesn't change yet again.
Sometimes it's the older buildings and parcels, but given anything here before the tunnel is now at least 55 years old, and what was built immediately after it opened is pushing a half-century, if it's not already there, it only makes sense that redevelopment would occur.
That's not to suggest all development improves the neighbourhood, but it does make the argument that change is inevitable. It's our job, collectively, to ensure that when the change comes, and it will, that it makes Delta a better place.
