In his homage to density (Density can save neighbourhoods, Issues and Ideas, Aug 15), Michael Goldberg argues in favour of adding higher density and taller buildings to single family residential areas. It’s all about keeping people in the hood. “When people talk about ‘neighborhood’ they talk about neighbors,” he says.

Politicians seeking re-election should not rely on the insights of monarchs or tenured professors as to what simple folk talk about. We do not chatter about the convenience of borrowing a cup of sugar from our friends next door. But we are firm in asserting the right to enjoy our own homes. When our homes are affected by noise, shadows, traffic, loss of parking, privacy and dwindling open space, we notice.

Goldberg says that we must erect more high buildings to allow people to remain in their neighborhoods as they age. In my view, these up-zoning density zealots are causing much of Vancouver’s rampant price inflation. If the population were relatively stable, empty nesters could move into existing apartments vacated by those selected for St. Peter’s celestial gated community.

Goldberg claims we need not fear that high-rises next to low rises will reduce our land value. If that is true, it is because their loss of amenity is offset by the increase in development potential promoted by the city. If a property squeezed between two towers is ineligible for re-development, it would not have the same value as one that could support plant life.

The truth of the matter is that the single family neighbourhoods Goldberg seeks to preserve have not existed for years. Densification has allowed not only secondary suites in virtually all homes but laneway houses as well.

The C-2 (commercial) zones along arterials in Vancouver generally allow for four story buildings. We are not even close to capacity to accommodate four stories under present zoning. Allowing developments in those areas is already legal. Re-zoning is not required.

Goldberg says: “Large and growing expenditures on rapid transit generate enormous opportunities to create significant height and density at transit stations and along major transit corridors.”

When a transit stop is placed in a neighborhood, its effect — and perhaps its original purpose — is to increase the density of that neighborhood. Some property owners may have wanted it and others not; neither have much of a say in the matter.

If the decision was made to increase neighborhood density by the placement of a transit stop without neighourhood consent, then the demand to supply more housing would have been created by transit itself. Densification in such circumstances is a consequence — not a solution.

Goldberg adds: “The great success of densification along Broadway near Arbutus includes buildings up to nine stories and has benefited the neighborhood greatly. Residents enjoy added retail and commercial services, a larger population to help sustain these services and no loss of neighborhood quality.”

However, residents are affected in different ways by densification. If they can’t find parking, if there is more noise from traffic, if their homes are in shadows, it is for them to determine whether the increase in the number of places to shop is adequate compensation.