Automobile City

[Glen]

Milton and Brampton are fast growing right now but this growth will soon come to an abrupt end when the land runs out. All of these 'fast-growing' 905 areas will see massive school closures in 20 years, just as the outer 416 recently saw some. Hopefully, the 905 school boards are learning how to not overbuild during times of rapid growth (as the 6 borough boards and the MSSB did between the 50s and the 80s), but they still cannot prevent inevitable enrollment declines. Milton actually lost population between 1996 and 2001 because they weren't subdividing new land at that time.

Why do you think that Milton and other municipalites will stop growing? Toronto projected growth through intensification. While it didn't happen and Toronto is anywhere between 130,000 to 200,000 behind in projected population growth (TOP, PTG), they still projected it to. Despite no increases in land. Do you think that this won't happen elsewhere?

 

[suv]

G

No, suv, you brought up schools in an attempt to prove that Toronto's doomed. The fast growing parts of the 905 will cease to be so in 20 years or less...that's how quickly the land will run out.

I just pointed out that some of Toronto's past problems regarding school enrollment will affect the 905 in the future. Nowhere did I say Toronto won't see another school closure. The TCDSB is prone to more closures if the religious make-up of a neighbourhood changes, but so is the TDSB because they still have cases of multiple schools per subdivision/neighbourhood unit even after some closures. By newer schools I also meant renovated/rebuilt schools...the Toronto boards no longer build schools designed for like 200 kids as they did a generation ago, but there's quite a few still hanging around.

Having worked for a school board, I know there's also an obscene amount of school repairs or complete rebuilds necessary and closing two small schools across the street from each other while rebuilding them as one large school makes sense. The 905, by virtue of mostly being developed later, is less overbuilt in terms of superfluous schools (one reason is that their subdivisions/neighbourhood units are often larger) but their demographics are more homogenous than the 416, which doesn't bode well for school closures later.

You'll be back, suv...you came to this forum to argue.

God. Help. Us. All.

Hello delusional one. Just cause you mowed grass at some school yards don't mean you are a weed expert. Well then again, who knows whether the smoke from the John Deere was coming from the exhaust...

I can't believe we actually are both from Scarborough, makes me wanna move to Milton. Just kidding Hipster Duck. It would be too far for you to find me.

Dude. There is no school closures happening in the outer regions of the 416. The outer region of the 416 is comprised largely of green and brown fields going through huge housing growth. House + 3 or 4 bedrooms = mommy + daddy + # of children = school growth.

Condo = daddy + daddy + adopted child = school capacity shrinking.

Condo = divorced milf + no child = good times for all.

sheesh.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think Chuck had the simplest most significant post way back just stating that this is is not an either or situation. Glen and suv's points that most population growth and job creation will remain in the suburbs is likely an accurate prediction. What is missing from the no new transit in the 416 argument is an underlying assumption that the transit system that exists is comprehensive. It could be just as likely that regardless of how much population growth and job creation there is in the 905, dollar for dollar investing in high density 416 areas will still generate more transit ridership both in absolute and percentage growth terms and hence would be a more "efficient" use of public resources. The argument for transit funding in the 905 is likey an "egalitarian" argument because dollar for dollar you will be generating less person trips but on the other hand giving more people the option of transit out of fairness (despite the fact that few people will exercise that option).

On the issue of demograhic change we really need to throw away the rulers and take a closer look at the trends. Most of the growth in the city region will continue to be in the suburbs. But look at what is really going on. The 905 job creation machine is in real trouble and the population is actually getting poorer as it grows. The 416 outer suburbs are neither growing significantly in population or jobs and is getting poorer as it stagnates. The old city of Toronto is now generating a marginal amount of jobs and population growth. In areas where it is growing, household incomes are dropping not because people are poorer but because the number of individuals per household is dropping. In neighbourhoods where the population is stagnant or decline, household incomes are actually skyrocketing. So in summary the suburbs are bursting with growth but getting poorer, the inner suburbs are in decline and the central city is becoming a bastion of entrenched wealth.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

I should start a new group on facebook - Downtown Torontonians for a Conservative Mayor. I'd do it if it wasn't for the fact that only 5 people would join, LOL.

You and me Chuck, I think it's just you and me here.

 

[suv]

You and me Chuck, I think it's just you and me here.

Um, you got room on board for one more?

With respect to the previous poster, he is pretty bang on. However, the wealth is not constrained to the central city.

Google map Toronto. What do you notice? Lake Ontario principally, Yonge St., and the Valleys, Rouge, Don and Humber.

What are people drawn to? Water, nature, city life.

Where can you live in larger spaces (desireable to people with income) and access all three to various degree? How about, the central city, south of Bloor to the west, south of Kingston to the east, up the humber, up the don, and up the rouge valleys.

The central city arguement is true, but let's not forget what is subtley going on throughout the rest of the city. As well, there are enormous stretches in all parts of the city where the middle class firmly reside as well. Yes, the city has more poorer families. It also has more middle and upper middle class as a total. So it's not all gloom and doom.

This can be a great city. We need to be more inclusive and less of the them and us mentality (burbs vs urban) (rich vs poor) (immigrant vs immigrant from a generation or more ago) (suv vs hipster duck) (wit vs sarcasm) (drug free vs scarberiankhat4u) ...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

TrickyRicky: a transit dollar is not automatically better spent in the 416. There's some 905 projects that would be more "efficient" than some 416 projects in terms of generating ridership, partially (if not mainly) because the 905 riders would be entirely new and low hanging fruit's easy pickings. It's probably indisputable that GO train improvements would reap the greatest benefits from a funding influx, predominately helping 905ers. Of course, GO trains and various bus routes are far cheaper than the subways or streetcars proposed for more central areas.

Why do you think that Milton and other municipalites will stop growing? Toronto projected growth through intensification. While it didn't happen and Toronto is anywhere between 130,000 to 200,000 behind in projected population growth (TOP, PTG), they still projected it to. Despite no increases in land. Do you think that this won't happen elsewhere?

*Every* municipality loses and/or will lose population - as Milton had as recently as the previous census - unless they continuously build new residences (or attract fertile immigrants). Wake me up when Milton razes its detached houses and throws up some mid-rises or becomes a Mecca for Mormons. There's no reason to assume the 905 will intensify, validating the expense of transit lines, when places like the area around Glencairn station haven't changed a bit. Toronto's been vomiting up dozens of condos per year into the sky and can hardly keep pace with demographic changes; realistically, the 905 won't sustain itself as much as Toronto is.

Toronto has been consuming new land, though, and parts of Toronto are growing as fast as parts of the 905. What we desperately need to do is plan transit pretending municipality borders don't exist. Using your criteria, Brampton deserves better transit, but since half of Brampton is already losing population, only half of Brampton should get improved transit.

There is no school closures happening in the outer regions of the 416. The outer region of the 416 is comprised largely of green and brown fields going through huge housing growth. House + 3 or 4 bedrooms = mommy + daddy + # of children = school growth.

Back again, I see. You don't need to keep tending to the embers of flamewars or announcing farewells to grab attention; you could just use more emoticons or a larger font. Actually, at the school board I mostly just sat around all day wasting tax dollars and chatting about how many dollars school boards waste.

Schools have closed in the outer 416. You define "outer 416" as, well, pretty much just Morningside Heights, aka Upper Malvern (then what's Rexdale or the rest of north Scarborough..."inner 416"?) but, really, there's only room for about 1000 more houses on greenfield sites in "outer" Toronto. The party's over for detached homes in the 416.

 

[suv]

If the party is over for detached homes in the 416, I suggest everybody grab one. Sounds like limited supply to me. You know what happens when there is limited supply, the commies come in and nationalizes em. Or they will cost an arm and a leg in the future. No matter where in the 416.

Condo's on the other hand, we can build a skyscraper every intersection. Endless supply of condos. Tattoo, a condo for everyone....welcome to fantasy island...

Everybody, group hug. Come here Scarberiankhat, you lil rascal...

 

[Glen]

*Every* municipality loses and/or will lose population - as Milton had as recently as the previous census - unless they continuously build new residences (or attract fertile immigrants). Wake me up when Milton razes its detached houses and throws up some mid-rises or becomes a Mecca for Mormons. There's no reason to assume the 905 will intensify, validating the expense of transit lines, when places like the area around Glencairn station haven't changed a bit. Toronto's been vomiting up dozens of condos per year into the sky and can hardly keep pace with demographic changes; realistically, the 905 won't sustain itself as much as Toronto is.

There is no need to assume that the 905 will intensify. It is already happening. There is a plethora of condo developments in Mississauga and Vaughn. There are official plan changes in place or being studied right now that are pushing for higher density along major roads (ex. Kipling and Islington in Woodbridge). The real difference is that in Toronto, despite the optics that all the new condo developments provide, it amounts to nothing more than a shuffling of the deck chairs.

Insofar as transit is concerned, I am pretty much in agreement with your sentiments above. There is a lot more lower hanging fruit in the 905 to serve than in the 416. If all transit was funded by the municipalities themselves, I would have little problem with each deciding to grow as they wish. As it stands though, transit requires funding from other levels of government. As such I don't think that it is fair that to expand transit in Toronto at the expense of the 905.

My other concerns are more forward looking. Toronto needs to get on the ball and become attractive to investment. Until we see tangible change the future looks bleak for the city. The main problem I have about expansion in Toronto is that in a climate where both population and employment is stagnant, is it a wise investment? Of course, by my contributions to this thread I think no.

Toronto has been consuming new land, though, and parts of Toronto are growing as fast as parts of the 905. What we desperately need to do is plan transit pretending municipality borders don't exist. Using your criteria, Brampton deserves better transit, but since half of Brampton is already losing population, only half of Brampton should get improved transit.

Using my criteria I would rather spend x$ in Brampton if would service more people than the same amount in Toronto. Today and in the future.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If the party is over for detached homes in the 416, I suggest everybody grab one. Sounds like limited supply to me.

They could build more, but micro-redevelopments that replace one or two wide-frontage houses tend to prefer "luxury townhomes" instead if skinny detacheds. If people are willing to buy something that has a front door and a backyard but not open space on both sides (and the buying public can be made to be willing) we can fit hundreds of thousands more "houses" in the 416...the only problem is that pesky stable neighbourhood bit in the official plan.

There is no need to assume that the 905 will intensify. It is already happening. The real difference is that in Toronto, despite the optics that all the new condo developments provide, it amounts to nothing more than a shuffling of the deck chairs.

My other concerns are more forward looking. Toronto needs to get on the ball and become attractive to investment. Until we see tangible change the future looks bleak for the city. The main problem I have about expansion in Toronto is that in a climate where both population and employment is stagnant, is it a wise investment? Of course, by my contributions to this thread I think no.

Using my criteria I would rather spend x$ in Brampton if would service more people than the same amount in Toronto. Today and in the future.

You're not thinking forward at all. Small bits of the 905 are intensifying, but the bulk is not and will not in the foreseeable future. You're tying absolutely everything to "growth," and this position is ridiculous. Why is Newmarket's or Mississiauga's (or, in 20 years, Brampton, Markham, Ajax, etc.) future bright but Toronto's bleak if all are equally built out and relient on redevelopment? Seriously, what do you think is going to happen to Aurora after they pave over the last few hundred acres of available land? Where do you think the bulk of the GTA's redevelopment is likely to go? Toronto!

You don't know if spending transit dollars in Brampton would help more people, you're just throwing money at *very* fleeting patches of growth. Using your criteria of current growth of any degree instead of vastly larger current or future ridership, extending the Sheppard subway both ways could be the best thing to do since the Vaughan-York-Downsview-NYCC-Sheppard-STC corridor is growing rather weedlike.

 

[Glen]

You're not thinking forward at all. Small bits of the 905 are intensifying, but the bulk is not and will not in the foreseeable future. You're tying absolutely everything to "growth," and this position is ridiculous. Why is Newmarket's or Mississiauga's (or, in 20 years, Brampton, Markham, Ajax, etc.) future bright but Toronto's bleak if all are equally built out and relient on redevelopment?

The future is brighter because of job prospects. People move across continents for employment. To suggest they won't cross municipal boundaries to be close to work is absurd.

Seriously, what do you think is going to happen to Aurora after they pave over the last few hundred acres of available land? Where do you think the bulk of the GTA's redevelopment is likely to go? Toronto!

Sorry but you saying so does not make it true. A decades worth of data says you are wrong. Toronto can not a be bedroom community in order to thrive. It needs a balance of employment and residences to survive. The condo myopia you suffer from has obscured that.

You don't know if spending transit dollars in Brampton would help more people, you're just throwing money at *very* fleeting patches of growth. Using your criteria of current growth of any degree instead of vastly larger current or future ridership, extending the Sheppard subway both ways could be the best thing to do since the Vaughan-York-Downsview-NYCC-Sheppard-STC corridor is growing rather weedlike.

Again why is intensification only viable in Toronto? When the need arises it will occur, where justified. Saying it will automatically happen in Toronto but not outside of the city is naive. That is not to say that Toronto might not get its act in order and become competitive and attractive for ICI development again. It may. But relying on that after two decades of defending tax policies that have contributed to its stagnation, you will have to pardon me if I remain skeptical.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I didn't say the 905 wouldn't or couldn't intensify, and you should know that because you quoted me not saying that.

So now Aurora's future is brighter because even after full build out, they'll apparently raze the houses and build more office buildings. I'm sure they'll just put Toronto's schools and hospitals on wheels and roll them into the 905, too. Employees can live in the 45 sleek towers of CityPlace Uxbridge. And 905 jobs are so permanent...software companies and distribution centres will *never* relocate or close. Never ever.

It's not that you're skeptical, it's that your irrational pessimism has given you a view on transit that's a tad extremely nutjob...that doesn't even follow your own rules.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Illegal Apartments

One negative I find in the 905 is that basement apartments are frowned upon.
The excuse they give is that the sewer and electrical would not be able to handle the extra people. Of course, the planners think of a 4 ½ person family as normal. They ignore that some of the homes have large families (I counted 15 people in one family in a detached house, in the last census).
The real problem is the extra cars they may require. Less of a problem in the inner 416. At least with transit available, the extra people can use transit to get around. Not so in the 905, which means cars parked on the streets overnight.
There are some the homes in the 905 that have illegal apartments. A legal apartment requires a separate entrance, but the illegal apartment have no separate entrance, but do have a kitchen and bath in basement. Of course, if they are all family, then it is legal for those family members to live in the basement.

 

[Dan416]

I know Mississauga is intensifying, but there is still a lot of NIMBYism. And the only places that are really walkable are downtown Port Credit, downtown Streetsville, and hopefully Mississauga City Centre. MCC could turn out pretty nice. I just hope it's not too monotonous. I hope Amacon's Parkside Village tries to have some uniqueness built-in because otherwise it could be a really dull village.

 

[Tuscani01]

You're younger than me then. I did 7 and 8 at St Rose (both inside the school itself lol), though my brother did grade 8 at St. Gregory, and my sister did several years at St Gregory. My older sister, myself and my brother all went to St Joe's (I was class of 2000, but then the year of OAC after), but my little sister went to Holy Name.

I live on Kisby Dr (right off of Bancroft, just after Creditview), where do you live? Oh and it's more like you followed ME around quite a bit, kid.

I did JK in T.O, SK-gr.2 at OLGV, 2-4 @ St. Rose, 5-8 @ gregs, and 9-12 at joes (class of 05). Im on McCracken which is right off Boyer. Im sorry for stalking you all these years. Im done now, I swear.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

One negative I find in the 905 is that basement apartments are frowned upon.

That could easily change, just as Toronto's tax rates could easily change. What's harder to change is entire neighbourhoods by throwing up condos and offices to justify ill-placed transit infrastructure after it's built.