News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.3K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 940     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

Greater Toronto's Sprawl

Glen, I'm not dismissing taxation or any one factor of interest. I'm glad there are people advocating for what they believe in. For the record I pay both residential and commercial taxes myself. What I'm stating is that it's the story behind the numbers, not the numbers that matter.

In the central city the story behind the numbers, the story of why I believe you are correct that the population numbers will undershoot predictions, is that the central city is getting more wealthy as it builds up. Wealth decreases population densities. Demographic trends act as a drag on population numbers

The story of many of the suburban areas is the opposite, they are getting less wealthy as they build out. Demographic trends act to augment population numbers.

From a philosophical perspective we could debate many points of what is the best direction to advocate for. To me, I think the city could stand to densify but only to a point after which I would suggest that zero population and zero job growth is most desirable. When I say zero growth I don't mean a stagnant standard of living. What I mean is a stable population and job market where the standard of living and quality of jobs is continuously improving.

And what does this population and job market look like? Is it dynamic? Is it competitive? Is it diversified? Is it equitable? These are the real questions that impact real people. In this century growth for growth sake will have to be relegated to the dust bin of human ideologies if we want it to or not.
 
Electrify said:
Is that article recent? It refers to the GTTA as being new, which suggests it is at least several years old. It is interesting to see the NP write from an ignorant downtowner perspective for a change, rather than an ignorant suburbanite as it usually does though.
Click to expand...

Looks like it is pre conrad black so 1996.
 
TrickyRicky said:
In the central city the story behind the numbers, the story of why I believe you are correct that the population numbers will undershoot predictions, is that the central city is getting more wealthy as it builds up. Wealth decreases population densities. Demographic trends act as a drag on population numbers

The story of many of the suburban areas is the opposite, they are getting less wealthy as they build out. Demographic trends act to augment population numbers.
Click to expand...

The inner suburbs have maintained their density while getting poorer. The 905 communities have been getting wealthier while density has increased. So I am not inclined to believe the demographic push argument.
 
In the central city the story behind the numbers, the story of why I believe you are correct that the population numbers will undershoot predictions, is that the central city is getting more wealthy as it builds up. Wealth decreases population densities. Demographic trends act as a drag on population numbers
Click to expand...

The story of many of the suburban areas is the opposite, they are getting less wealthy as they build out. Demographic trends act to augment population numbers.


Glen said:
The inner suburbs have maintained their density while getting poorer. The 905 communities have been getting wealthier while density has increased. So I am not inclined to believe the demographic push argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems to go in waves: downtown (high), inner-suburbs (low), 905 (high). Obviously there are 'poorer' and 'richer' areas in each, but generally it does follow a wave pattern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EnviroTO said:
50% for you? Would that be half your body or do you live with an even number of people currently. I'm sure that with most of the land in Mississauga relatively new (post 1980) single detached developments, not much land vacant, and the area being less walkable than older neighbourhoods there is some serious obstacles to Mississauga taking 50% of the GTA's growth.
Click to expand...

Mississauga will NEVER ever have a 50% share from GTA's growth. What I mean (and what the figure says) is that Mississauga should have taken 50% of their current population by 2031 instead of 15%. So basically, multiply the 2006 census population to 1.5, and you got the result. So 668,549 * 1.5 = 1,002,824 people by 2031 or a little later.
 
Last edited:
One cause of sprawl is cheap gasoline.

However, there is a story from the States, at this link, about oil subsidies that the U.S. gives to oil companies. Does Canada do the same to oil companies in Canada? Nice way to fight the deficit by eliminating the oil subsidies here in Canada, if we are doing the same as the U.S.

Obama vows to slash oil aid, race to clean energy

US President Barack Obama vowed to eliminate billions of dollars of oil subsidies in order to invest in a space race-like drive towards a clean energy future.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you?ve noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own," he said in his State of the Union address.

"Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's," he added in the annual speech outlining his main policy goals.

Obama vowed government support for research that could lead to breakthroughs in green energy, comparing such efforts to the Cold War race to the moon.

"We're not just handing out money. We?re issuing a challenge. We're telling America?s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time," Obama said.

"With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015."

Obama challenged the country to scale back its dependence on fossil fuels, setting the goal of producing 80 percent of US electricity from "clean energy sources" by 2035.

"Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen," Obama said.

Last year Obama championed a clean energy bill that would have set up a "cap-and-trade" program to reduce emissions in the world's second largest polluter, only to see it die in the Senate.

He faces an even steeper climb now that resurgent Republicans -- who oppose carbon regulations they say would hamper a desperately-needed economic recovery -- control the House of Representatives.

The 21-page "Pledge to America" released by Republicans in September calls for increased access to domestic energy sources and opposition to what they describe as a national "cap-and-trade" energy tax.

Republicans have often derided Obama's clean energy policies as "job killers," and support offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Arctic, nuclear power plants, and coal-to-liquid technology
Click to expand...
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/922618--the-region-s-rise-and-sprawl

Compare:

Markham hired a high-profile visionary, California-based “new urbanist” Peter Calthorpe, to design communities with densities approaching that of downtown Toronto. It pioneered the idea of suburban intensification, redeveloping areas already built on.

The town also engaged in audacious debates about whether it should urbanize thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land just because it could — and chose not to.

Brampton, meanwhile, is plowing ahead with plans that will make it the hot spot for horizontal growth — a.k.a. sprawl — in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Its plans will end up paving over what remains of thousands of hectares of rural land within the city limits, just as neighbouring Mississauga did.
Click to expand...
 
Markham gets way too much credit. It hasn't actually intensified anything yet...it's still filling in the land between Steeles and Hwy 7, along the 404 and 407, that was essentially leap-frogged when Markham/Unionville grew before areas closer to Toronto. Markham is still building almost exclusively on greenfields, filling in the gaps while also expanding into the countryside to the north and east...how, uh, noble! The Galleria condo at Doncaster, the condo at Midland & Steeles...these sorts of under construction projects are some of the first actual modern redevelopments that Markham has seen. Downtown Brampton, for instance, is probably farther along in terms of actual redevelopment, though it is farther behind in terms of grand watercolour visions.
 
It's true that Markham has still been mostly building on greenfields, but I think it deserves credit for planning for much more intensive growth. Also, there is more redevelopment happening now, but it's mostly smaller projects. For example, the Milliken Main Street Secondary Plan has seen condo development (as you mentioned) and townhomes replacing old industrial buildings, Main Street Markham is starting to see redevelopment with the 68 Main Street project, etc. These are baby steps, but in a few years the Langstaff area, Buttonville airport, and other areas such as the lands around Markville will all see redevelopment.
 
Of course, Markham should get credit for planning intensive developments. But that means Mississauga should get credit as well. What is Mississauga City Centre and the 100 or so high-rise buildings in the Hurontario corridor if not intensive growth? And has Port Credit, Cooksville, Streetsville not seen redevelopment as well?

And of course as mentioned there's downtown Brampton. What about the downtown and uptown Oakville, Etobicoke Centre, Scarborough Centre, North York Centre... ? Not to mention the other thousands of suburban high-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings that have been built in the GTA outside of Markham since the 50s... Markham is not even close to being a pioneer of intensive suburban development, not in the GTA, not anywhere else, it's as simple as that.
 
Yes, but Mississauga is bigger and started intensifying later. In 20-30 years, I would bet that Markham will be far more dense within its developed area than Mississauga or anywhere else outside the 416 in the GTA.
 
canarob said:
In 20-30 years, I would bet that Markham will be far more dense within its developed area than Mississauga or anywhere else outside the 416 in the GTA.
Click to expand...
The question is will the residents actually accept that? Intensification sounds great on paper, but once it starts getting closer to residents then NIMBYS go through the roof and you end up with every project over 5 stories at the OMB. I think it's great that Markham has these plans, but let's see if they actually go somewhere, and if the "progressive" councils will last long enough before Markham's plans get derailed. Mississauga has had these exact problems with redeveloping in Port Credit, and Lakeview. MCC only works because the only shadows it causes are on empty parking lots.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top