Sometimes I think you argue just for the sake of arguing. Toronto is what, only 25% space utilized, now I don't believe that we should endanger the balance that Toronto has, but there is certaintly room for growth, if the demand is there. And not all people work downtown or in Toronto. The key is for people to live, and work close together, or within adequate transit distance within. I have very little sympathy for the segment of the population that move to say brampton, into their new 4 bedroom house, and complain there are no amendies there, but don't want to move closer to their work because they cannot afford the same surburban castle elsewhere.You really think the entire population of the GTA can fit within an area that's within easy reach of existing subway lines, don't you? We'd have to sacrifice a heck of a lot to fit them all in, starting with every building under three storeys. Bye Bye Rosedale, you're being replaced with Tehran or Sao Paulo style tenements.
On the same token, who can argue with people living in Lorne Park, or most parts in Oakville, or even in modest Markham where 3bdroom houses cost $350K+, when there are people living in small bungalows throughout the 416, or living in duplexes and other higher density affortable housing. Most of these subdivisions didn't exist 15, 20 years ago. Unlike what another poster in this thread who believes that the region was like this way 50 years ago, though if this was true, most would be living in farmland, Toronto still has plenty of room to grow through mid-rises, and yes high rises, especially near underused existing subway stations, within a 5 minute bus ride radius of those stations.Exactly - Rosedale, Forest Hill, Bridle Path, Kingsway, North Toronto, Leaside, Willowdale, etc...who can argue that these places are the poor cousins of well to do Brampton and Oshawa?
Well, geez, doesn't that have something to do with more affluent families in GTA providing the demand for more affluent subdivisions in 905? And you think we should cater for your dream of low density suburban subways just because you use the most extreme examples, and not whats best for the masses.Higher" incomes than what, Jane & Finch? Like that's an accomplishment given the 905 has almost no housing stock for low income families.