here's a report from a June 2011 Brampton planning committee meeting with an update
That, or municipalities could refuse to service subdivisions built too far away.
Just came back from Port Credit, where locals buy their stuff on lakeshore or the vicinity. It's shaping up as a very livable place, with parks, restaurants, cafes, and stores constantly opening up.
Brampton could choose to go this way instead of building another Scarborough Town Centre that attracts sprawl and neglect of surroundings. Not to mention stifle and destroy independent brands and stores.
How many 'local' stores do you see at Mapleview, Scarborough Town Centre, Shoppers' world, or Square One? Continuing with the shopping mall mentality attempts against the creativity and uniqueness of locals that can't compete with corporate advertisement in spite of producing a better product.
At the very least Brampton should be trying to do something like Old Quebec Street in Guelph, which in a plasticky way has been bringing people back to the sidewalks.
^I mean no disrespect by this comment but that post really sounds like someone who is not really "up to speed" on local Brampton issues. The city spends a massively disproportionate amount of resources trying to do just that.
All available tax funds are spent on the old downtown on streetscapes, on encouraging a more urban setting, on building space to bring all city office staff downtow, on things to do, on restoring heritage properties, on anything really that is meant to develop a downtown that attracts people and investment. While they have done fine work with their own dollars, the grand sum of private sector investment is a couple of condos and a Starbucks.
The ratio of public sector investment to private is extreme. It is a walkable area, with public squares, a theatre, a lovely park, a train station and a bus terminal......yet the market speaks and insists on malls and, to be blunt, if the city tries to just say no to the malls, the conversation will move to the OMB and they will approve the malls.
The city can, and must, deal with the mall proposal while ate same time encouraging investment in the old town. It has learned the hard and expensive way (and they have tried) that they can't say no to greenfield development in the hope that the private sector will just shift their funds to Queen and George Streets.
Last edited by TOareaFan; 2011-Jul-13 at 22:13.
As for highways...........http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...n-Peel-Freeway
The point was, however, that the city has not earned the criticism they receive on the matter....they are relentless in their efforts to create a downtown feel/vibe/lifestyle/community.....to the extent they hopelessly fight some developments outside of that area just because they would rather the project be downtown.
I live in the hope that someday in my lifetime we will actually have real regional rail on those lines so the vehicles would be comparable in their impact to existing subway lines.[/quote]Obviously I see no problem with high density beside subways, LRT & BRT but i'm not so sure about heavy rail lines. Personally I would never want to live within approx. 250m of a rail line. Due to exposure from carcinogenic diesel fumes and excessive noise pollution (engine, metal squeal, braking etc.).
You make a very valid point about freight trains, but they're not really an issue on most GO corridors. Milton, Bala north of the York Sub and the Mactier Sub are the only ones that see really serious freight traffic.Also, If you wondering why I wouldn't want to live so close to a rail line while being more than willing to work on them the reasons are simple. First off Go trains are no where near as polluting as freights in both respects (Diesel & noise). Mitigation measures are taken in a GO train - such as noise dampening insulation. This mitigates a significant amount of engine noise, although it is still quite loud. The engine cab is also structurally sealed minimizing exposure to diesel fumes when inside. The largest exposure I gets is when I walk to and away from the engine while its idling in a yard. An individual would receive a much larger exposure from a passing engine running in full throttle. Its one thing to be exposed to a train or two a day while waiting on a station platform, its another to be exposed to dozens possible hundreds on certain lines, per day.
Even if they build a bridge over to the Mount Pleasant mobility hub, a kilometre is just too far to be a convenient connection.
Stopping the Spadina freeway was overall against the forces of the market.
Building a new drive-to mall over a farm is clearly one of those things for people like myself. It's replacing a library with a brothel, it might seem like the right thing to do, but down the road the community might regret the loss of the former.
As for Brampton and how it's shaping itself - have you seen the new houses by Mt. Pleasant? They are some of the most wastefully constructed houses out there. One driveway can fit FOUR vehicles. A total of SIX if 2 are in the garage. WHY?!
The space around a GO station should never have been approved for such 'development'. The only retail available is some big box stores sitting on a gigantic parking lot on Bovaird. ALL of the Toronto Eaton Centre would fit in that parking lot. There is no excuse to build a mall on some of the most fertile lands in the country when the taken space has been used so wastefully.
I think part of the problem is the disconnect between planners and the way people actually live in the suburbs. Planners try to locate walkable little village centres with offices above shops around the GO stations when in fact people want to shop at the mall or the power centre and work at the office park. We should maybe try working with what we have and locate the mall and the office park at the stations.
Ultimately, we need to make the GO corridors into real regional rail lines. The problem is that most of the stations aren't really hubs of anything because GO is nothing but a commuter railway in most cases. To try and rectify our past mistakes, all major trip generators should have to be adjacent to a rail corridor so that when regional rail service is finally introduced, it can be properly served.
However, I do agree that society as a whole stands to benefit from increasing density near the actual stations themselves and that taking all ramifications into account such benefits would out weigh the negatives. Basically, if your going to intensify near a rail line in the first place, as with this proposal, than it would make more sense to build it as close as possible to the station rather than a kilometer away where the benefit is reduced or lost.
RedRocket191 and I went on a field trip to Mt. Pleasant Village the other day. I love it how the live/work units and the "urban" units last only 1 block and the rest are single family detched homes. In addition, the 'laneway' behind these live/work units are not really laneways (apart from the one strip that looked like it could be something). I just wonder how it is award winning. that boggles my mind.As for Brampton and how it's shaping itself - have you seen the new houses by Mt. Pleasant? They are some of the most wastefully constructed houses out there. One driveway can fit FOUR vehicles. A total of SIX if 2 are in the garage. WHY?!
Back to the talk about a mall. I think it will be able to survive since, as someone mentioned before, there could possibly be support from Georgetown, Caledon, Acton, and even Milton. I'm just curious to see what retailers are willing to set-up shop in these areas. It may end up looking like Erin Mills
Across the road too, it looks like there's more, but there's literally 2 rows of them next to one another and that's it.
The Burnaby Metrotown/Scarborough Centre model isn't the prettiest and it isn't the urban village ideal, but it works. It's transit-centred, economically successful, reasonably high-density, and provides a hub for the surrounding community. There's a limit to the social engineering we can do and most people who move to the outer fringes of the GTA are looking for a single-family home, whether we like it or not, rather than an urban "live-work" experience. If we had real regional rail, a station could be the site of a large shopping centre, a transit hub for bus routes into the adjacent single-family neighbourhoods, some condo towers, and maybe an office park. They would provide a major destination to generate bi-directional flows on regional rail lines and would provide a reasonable amount of high-density residential within walking distance. Whether we like it or not, suburban neighbourhoods are centred on their local mall or power centre. It's far better that the centre located at a regional rail stop rather than a highway interchange.
I'd add that this is also a very European model that I'm proposing. In Berlin, for example, the suburban centres are mostly anchored by a power centre-esque shopping mall, such as the big Gesundbrunnen mall and the shopping centres in Marzahn and Hohenschoenhausen. All of them are adjacent to an S-Bahn stop and serve as a hub for tram and bus routes that can feed both the mall and the station. I'd add that by virtue of being connected to and fed by a rail station, they're much more pedestrian-friendly than your average Toronto suburban mall or power centre.
Last edited by unimaginative2; 2011-Jul-14 at 15:31.