Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[jcam]

Really, if we are going on the utilitarian end of the subway construction scale, there shouldn't be any surface structures except maybe bus bays in some cases. Why bother with the expense of construction and wasted real estate for glorified entrances? Instead the surface rights should be sold to developers and the stations should be built as part of another building, like how most of the downtown stations are incorporated into the basements of office towers. That way the developer pays the price of station construction, commuters get retail at the station, and there are trip generators (jobs/residents) built into the station itself.

I think any subways moving forward will take the same tact as the ECLRT...more minimalist, build to accommodate future development overhead (Yonge, Bayview) and with a consistent aesthetic. That of course is partially driven by how they procured it, whereas TYSSE split the station designs up, and then layered ontop a design competition.

 

[muller877]

One of the interesting things about Quebec. Even in rural towns, you still have small duplexes/triplexes as you'd see in urban areas like Montreal. Very European. Other than maybe assisted living homes, it's not very often that we see this type of higher density in rural Ontario.

There has been an uptick in the mid-rise market in Toronto now that wood-frame construction is permitted. Won't be duplexes but more stacked townhomes on old strip malls and larger gas station plots. And hopefully replacing single detached homes (2 or 3 in a row) along avenues. I just hope the city creates a very easy process for these to be approved without NIMBY's getting in the way.

Both Carlaw and Pape would be ideal for this type of growth. Buy 3 houses and build 15 units (4 stories high plus underground parking). Quick to build and creates a lot of density.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

I must say it does seem to make more sense in places where there are already several unites divided up within individual houses.

 

[muller877]

Expropriation. Everyone here seems to know what that means.

Note 2: If anyone has owned property in cottage country, then you may have come across markers on your land. As it turns out, you bought the surface of the land. Not the ground water and not the mineral rights underneath. It's common for property owners to have mines dug and things extracted from under their land. Why the hell hasn't anyone pointed this out to a resident of Pape Av?
.

may I suggest you do a bit of searching for the "Mining Act" on this forum or on google before posting? The Mining Act is only for extraction. Not for permanent facilities such as a subway.

So no the Mining Act would not work...you would have to expropriate the subterranean rights for any transit project.

 

[simval]

One of the interesting things about Quebec. Even in rural towns, you still have small duplexes/triplexes as you'd see in urban areas like Montreal. Very European. Other than maybe assisted living homes, it's not very often that we see this type of higher density in rural Ontario.

Not only are they common, in many small towns, they make up the majority of the housing stock!

To compare, here is a small sampling of small towns in Ontario:

Source: Census Profiles.

 

[aquateam]

Not only are they common, in many small towns, they make up the majority of the housing stock!

To compare, here is a small sampling of small towns in Ontario:

Source: Census Profiles.

It's you! I love your blog. I linked your blog post with those exact two graphs a page ago.

Can't believe we have a real-life celebrity in the world of online canadian urbanism blogging. Seriously, you're like a Jane Jacobs but better. It's good to see someone take an empirical, engineering approach to urbanism.

 

[Johnny Au]

There are quite a number of triplexes in the eastern part of the former city of York.

 

[44 North]

There has been an uptick in the mid-rise market in Toronto now that wood-frame construction is permitted. Won't be duplexes but more stacked townhomes on old strip malls and larger gas station plots. And hopefully replacing single detached homes (2 or 3 in a row) along avenues. I just hope the city creates a very easy process for these to be approved without NIMBY's getting in the way.

Both Carlaw and Pape would be ideal for this type of growth. Buy 3 houses and build 15 units (4 stories high plus underground parking). Quick to build and creates a lot of density.

It's interesting when viewing population growth maps of Toronto over the decades and watching as much of the older areas of the city saw a steep decline (with many rooming houses, duplexes, triplexes being converted to SFDs), then a gradual return/increase as condos started taking over. People look at areas like Bloor/Danforth today and say: 'they built a subway there'. But back in the 60s those areas were helluva a lot more high-density than today.

Over time though I think many SFD owners will decide to convert (or revert in many cases) back to duplexes/triplexes. A little less house, but a good supplementary income so long as the tenant isn't an a**. Particularly in parts of the city with larger houses and ample parking. And laneway houses should be a major new step in inner city urbanism (though that's probably dependent on whether the City improves the procedure and costs involved).

With areas like Pape between Queen and Gerrard though I have a hard time believing we'll see many teardowns to low/midrise if the houses in question are a century or more old. Not so much because of individual NIMBYism, but rather a general push for heritage protection. Though I guess facedectomy can still preserve the character while also allowing a 3-lot conversion.

Not only are they common, in many small towns, they make up the majority of the housing stock!

To compare, here is a small sampling of small towns in Ontario:

Source: Census Profiles.

Well done. What a contrast.

 

[simval]

It's you! I love your blog. I linked your blog post with those exact two graphs a page ago.

Can't believe we have a real-life celebrity in the world of online canadian urbanism blogging. Seriously, you're like a Jane Jacobs but better. It's good to see someone take an empirical, engineering approach to urbanism.

Thanks for your comment, I'm glad my blog makes sense for more than just me. I don't think I'd claim to be a celebrity, unless within a teeny, tiny circle of people. And I think you might have just said something quite heretical for some by calling someone better than Jane Jacobs

Also, these two graphs aren't exactly the same than those found on the page you linked to. It's the same type of data, but for other cities.

 

[MisterF]

Not only are they common, in many small towns, they make up the majority of the housing stock!

To compare, here is a small sampling of small towns in Ontario:

Source: Census Profiles.

Quebec communities seem to have less defined downtowns than their Ontario counterparts too; instead of a small, tightly packed main street area surrounded by residential they have commercial development more evenly spread out through the town. There's some of this kind of built form in Ontario too, in areas close to the border that have been clearly influenced by Quebec urbanism. You can see it in some of the villages east of Ottawa.

 

[aquateam]

Also, these two graphs aren't exactly the same than those found on the page you linked to. It's the same type of data, but for other cities.

Ah, sorry, I was so starstruck that I neglected to examine the graphs.

 

[Tulse]

For those of us not familiar with simval's work, can we get a link?

 

[WislaHD]

It's you! I love your blog. I linked your blog post with those exact two graphs a page ago.

Can't believe we have a real-life celebrity in the world of online canadian urbanism blogging. Seriously, you're like a Jane Jacobs but better. It's good to see someone take an empirical, engineering approach to urbanism.

Thanks for your comment, I'm glad my blog makes sense for more than just me. I don't think I'd claim to be a celebrity, unless within a teeny, tiny circle of people. And I think you might have just said something quite heretical for some by calling someone better than Jane Jacobs

Also, these two graphs aren't exactly the same than those found on the page you linked to. It's the same type of data, but for other cities.

Another big fan of your blog.

Welcome to UrbanToronto!

For those of us not familiar with simval's work, can we get a link?

Here you go! http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/?m=1

 

[Tuck]

Really, if we are going on the utilitarian end of the subway construction scale, there shouldn't be any surface structures except maybe bus bays in some cases. Why bother with the expense of construction and wasted real estate for glorified entrances? Instead the surface rights should be sold to developers and the stations should be built as part of another building, like how most of the downtown stations are incorporated into the basements of office towers. That way the developer pays the price of station construction, commuters get retail at the station, and there are trip generators (jobs/residents) built into the station itself.

Yeah I agree with this completely. I'm not sure how much all those structures cost, but it can't be cheap. Though maybe its still a small expense compared to everything else.

Just seems excessive and a waste of space.

Maybe partially accessibility related? Not sure. Line 2 has them too. Ideally the downtown station's entrances will be simple staircases, with more elaborate/accessible entrances in nearby buildings.

 

[Palma]

Or maybe the free market showed that people hate those type of residences.

No its because developers make more by building high rise condos