Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
allengeorge
Senior Member
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2022/02/20/the-province-wants-to-double-the-density-at-two-york-region-transit-oriented-stations-that-has-locals-fuming/_graham_churchill.jpg)
The province wants to ‘double the density’ at two York Region transit-oriented stations. That has locals fuming
The extra density comes at the expense of space for employment and community amenities, leading area municipalities to push back on the plan.
Also…
Amazing. Every municipality in the GTA: we want transit, but we don’t want density.
I will say that some of the comments are reasonable: obviously Markham doesn’t want its nodes to turn into bedroom communities, wants more parkland, and we don’t have a good track record for large master-planned developments. But, if you ask for a deep-ass station to appease a few homeowners you pay the price elsewhere. Thems the breaks.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The NIMBY snobs want the rapid transit but don't want the needed density that would support it. They want to have their rural estate as they drink their Mint Julep under the shade of their large oak trees, looking over their green, green grass.The province wants to ‘double the density’ at two York Region transit-oriented stations. That has locals fuming
The extra density comes at the expense of space for employment and community amenities, leading area municipalities to push back on the plan.www.thestar.com
Also…
Amazing. Every municipality in the GTA: we want transit, but we don’t want density.
I will say that some of the comments are reasonable: obviously Markham doesn’t want its nodes to turn into bedroom communities, wants more parkland, and we don’t have a good track record for large master-planned developments. But, if you ask for a deep-ass station to appease a few homeowners you pay the price elsewhere. Thems the breaks.
syn
Senior Member
Why wouldn't they?
It's been sold to them as something deserved for well over a decade now.
Undead
Senior Member
Shame Markham doesn't realize this crazy density is partly because they're not upzoning their swathes of suburbia to townhouse and midrise.
Also, merely wishing for jobs in an area won't attract them. Clearly, companies have chosen to be elsewhere (downtown and highway corridors).
Their efforts would be better spent on moderate/gentle densification and improving transit to existing employment hubs like Leslie-407.
Also, merely wishing for jobs in an area won't attract them. Clearly, companies have chosen to be elsewhere (downtown and highway corridors).
Their efforts would be better spent on moderate/gentle densification and improving transit to existing employment hubs like Leslie-407.
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
The province wants to ‘double the density’ at two York Region transit-oriented stations. That has locals fuming
The extra density comes at the expense of space for employment and community amenities, leading area municipalities to push back on the plan.
Also…
Amazing. Every municipality in the GTA: we want transit, but we don’t want density.
I will say that some of the comments are reasonable: obviously Markham doesn’t want its nodes to turn into bedroom communities, wants more parkland, and we don’t have a good track record for large master-planned developments. But, if you ask for a deep-ass station to appease a few homeowners you pay the price elsewhere. Thems the breaks.
Although, it is not like they do not want any new density. The debate is between two competing plans, both of which will add a lot of density, but one will add more than the other.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
This is correct. The City's own approved plan is literally the densest growth centre in the province, outside downtown Toronto.
The issue here, per the Star article, is of process and what the role of municipalities (both elected and staff) should be when the Province is doing it's own thing on their turf. It's ultimately the same dicussion as with MZOs and even that housing report that came out last week, which has a lot of ideas about providing more housing by marginalizing municipal "interference."
All this other stuff about NIMBYs and Royal Orchard is really just red herrings, IMHO.
asher__jo
Active Member
The overuse of MZO's is going to get them in trouble with the electorate. The PC's seem to misunderstand that planning in a democratic environment is messy and sometimes slow, and rushing that process for mere expediency will aggrevate the "NIMBY" tension.
ARG1
Senior Member
I don't think its that simple. You see there are 2 schools of thought here: One suggests like you that planning should be done in a very messy and slow democratic process, meanwhile others believe that we are so behind transit, that we need to abandon this democratic bs and just get stuff done. Now tell me, to the broad voter base, what is more appealing? The idea of slowly planning out transit projects that come out at a leaky pace, or announcing that you are ramming through 4 subway projects and are actually getting things done? The only people that are mad about the MZOs are A) A vocal minority of the local communities, and B) Angry Star Readers. Almost everyone else doesn't really care.
allengeorge
Senior Member
ARG1
Senior Member
I'm talking about voters, which is what asher was talking about (well technically the people working at the City of Markham are voters too, but they're effectively a rounding error).
allengeorge
Senior Member
Gotcha.
FWIW, I think across the political spectrum, people prefer local consultation even if it slows down housing development (at least if this poll is to be believed). Then again, people also support the government doing something, so...who knows what the electorate really thinks about MZOs.
I suspect both you and asher have valid points: a) that the portion of the populace that is really fired up around MZOs and will change their vote based on them is tiny b) people really believe in local control, and overriding it too much will get the OPC in trouble with the electorate unless the message is crafted and delivered well.
MrGoose
Active Member
Local control is how you get a supply crisis because the only people with the time to show up to zoning meetings are crusty seniors with too much time on their hands who hate change, young people and the poors (and the rich who hate all those things too)
ARG1
Senior Member
Now what I'm going to say is completely anecdotal, and perhaps it isn't a strong representation of the 905 - I'm just speaking from personal experience.
A lot of people who live here in the 905 are immigrants from countries like Russia or China where they have a massive amount of public transit and especially metros that are being built - most of them with very limited local consultations. These immigrants often arrive here extremely discontent about how poor our Metro system is, and absolutely want to see it expanded on a massive scale. These same people also wouldn't really care about consultation over every small detail - these people really want transit, and they want that transit badly: If not for them, then for their kids. If you give them a politician that tries to push through as much "good and usable transit" as possible, I think you can easily win a good chunk of them over - especially in the 905.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
It's really a question of due process.
I'd argue most of the MZO's are fine and the bigger matter is one of principle, especially when there are no actual criteria for them and political inconsistencies, as is now going on in Willowdale.
I don't think anyone argues the planning process functions at optimal efficiency but sometimes democracy is messy and slow. Am override for important projects is justifiable but the idea that the Minister should do whatever he wants whenever he wants its more concerning. And,legally he can. Yeah, local councils can bow to pressure etc. But I think it's simplistic and dangerous to blame them for the lack of supply and thereby justify centralizing power at MMAH.
Here, the province is spending on a big project so it makes sense they'd stick their noses in the process. But that doesn't mean local officials, the people actually elected to govern their communities, should be left out of the process entirely. I don't blame them for being irked and with two elections coming up residents will have lots of directions in which to vent their own frustrations.
I'd argue most of the MZO's are fine and the bigger matter is one of principle, especially when there are no actual criteria for them and political inconsistencies, as is now going on in Willowdale.
I don't think anyone argues the planning process functions at optimal efficiency but sometimes democracy is messy and slow. Am override for important projects is justifiable but the idea that the Minister should do whatever he wants whenever he wants its more concerning. And,legally he can. Yeah, local councils can bow to pressure etc. But I think it's simplistic and dangerous to blame them for the lack of supply and thereby justify centralizing power at MMAH.
Here, the province is spending on a big project so it makes sense they'd stick their noses in the process. But that doesn't mean local officials, the people actually elected to govern their communities, should be left out of the process entirely. I don't blame them for being irked and with two elections coming up residents will have lots of directions in which to vent their own frustrations.