News   Jul 24, 2024
Hullmark, First Capital, and Woodbourne Break Ground on 1071 King West
 262     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
News Roundup for July 24, 2024
 489     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
Nature and Artifice
 409     0 

Greater Toronto's Sprawl

It's kind of amazing how little high density development Brampton allows, especially compared to Mississauga and Markham. Even Vaughan and Oakville are allowing new high-density neighourhoods. All new neighbourhoods in Brampton are low density only - all houses, no apartments.
 
doady said:
It's kind of amazing how little high density development Brampton allows, especially compared to Mississauga and Markham. Even Vaughan and Oakville are allowing new high-density neighourhoods. All new neighbourhoods in Brampton are low density only - all houses, no apartments.
Click to expand...

That is not quite true. The city is actively seeking higher density but they have the naive notion that they can totally dictate to the market where it goes (they prefer it was in the old city downtown or along the old auto strip on Queen).

The development I mentioned above is in Heart Lake and the city's first position with the developer was (really) why don't you build it on Queen.....they sort of backed off on that when the developer reminded them that:

a) he does not actually own any land on Queen so that woudl be hard; and
b) probably the same reason none of the landowners between Kennedy and 410 have delivered the density the city is looking for - there is probably no market for units there.

I believe the city is genuine in seeking density (there have been a few projects in the downtown) and they have managed to rezone some land on Bramalea Road near the Bramalea GO station to get a couple of Medallion buildings......but they really have to listen to the market a bit more and some of my NIMBY neighbours a bit less....and I think that is why bodies like the OMB have to be unelected....otherwise the NIMBYs have as much influence on them as they do councillors.
 
I disagree with you there. The mayor and council were democratically elected so at some level represent the opinions of the residents of Brampton, unlike the OMB.
 
TOareaFan said:
I believe the city is genuine in seeking density (there have been a few projects in the downtown) and they have managed to rezone some land on Bramalea Road near the Bramalea GO station to get a couple of Medallion buildings......but they really have to listen to the market a bit more and some of my NIMBY neighbours a bit less....and I think that is why bodies like the OMB have to be unelected....otherwise the NIMBYs have as much influence on them as they do councillors.
Click to expand...

Actually, the OMB can undo what the city does. And, as was pointed out, city council is democratically elected by the people. The OMB is not. Nor does the OMB act on behalf of increasing (or decreasing) density.
 
There's just about the same amount of office space in the rest of the GTA (i.e. 905) that there is in the 416 ... so you really have no precedence there whatsoever.

Maybe something along these lines: People who don't have the ability to commute to work or live close by work must not be happy ...
 
Expensive gas prices will make everyone suffer. Just wait until the TTC has to renew their fuel contract. Can you say $0.25 jump in fares next year. People in Toronto still drive, maybe not as much distances, but all our roads are congested so even going shorter distances we face greater traffic and thus waste more fuel.
 
lead82 said:
Expensive gas prices will make everyone suffer. Just wait until the TTC has to renew their fuel contract. Can you say $0.25 jump in fares next year. People in Toronto still drive, maybe not as much distances, but all our roads are congested so even going shorter distances we face greater traffic and thus waste more fuel.
Click to expand...

Good reason for a Finch West LRT, Hurontario LRT, the Waterloo LRT and other LRT lines, they don't use diesel fuel. Electricity prices are also going up, but not like petroleum prices. GO Transit will also see increases in their use, especially as people look for accommodation near the GO stations, so they don't have to use cars to get into downtown Toronto.
 
Actually electricity prices are also going up a lot. You can't really escape higher energy costs. Those days are over. However, what you can do is use the energy you do more productively. Luckily, we Canadians are so unproductive in our energy usage we can do a lot just by shifting our lifestyle habits. It is no coincidence that the areas experiencing the greatest property price appreciation, be they in Toronto or the surrounding communities, are the ones most centrally located.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Actually electricity prices are also going up a lot. You can't really escape higher energy costs. Those days are over. However, what you can do is use the energy you do more productively. Luckily, we Canadians are so unproductive in our energy usage we can do a lot just by shifting our lifestyle habits. It is no coincidence that the areas experiencing the greatest property price appreciation, be they in Toronto or the surrounding communities, are the ones most centrally located.
Click to expand...

I would wait until the next release of the Consumer Price Index from Statistics Canada. See this link after next week.
 
lead82 said:
Expensive gas prices will make everyone suffer. Just wait until the TTC has to renew their fuel contract. Can you say $0.25 jump in fares next year. People in Toronto still drive, maybe not as much distances, but all our roads are congested so even going shorter distances we face greater traffic and thus waste more fuel.
Click to expand...

TTC budgeted about 85 million dollars for fuel last year. 1.30 is about 30% higher, an additional 25 million dollars. The bus fleet averages 1.4km/L fuel costs are now 90 cents a km instead of 65 - or, with 30 passengers, 3 cents per pax/km over 2 last year.

In reality fuel costs are a relatively small part of the cost of the system. It is just because the TTC is so hand-to-mouth that fuel prices make such a huge effect.
 
From the latest release from the Consumer Price Index at Statistics Canada, at this link:

Consumer prices rose 2.2% in the 12 months to February, following the 2.3% increase posted in January.

Energy prices rose 10.6% during the 12 months to February, after posting a 9.0% increase the previous month. Gasoline prices continued to increase in February, rising 15.7%, after recording a 13.0% increase in the 12 months to January.

...
In addition to higher gasoline prices in the 12 months to February, consumers paid 4.0% more in passenger vehicle insurance premiums. They also paid more for air transportation but less for the purchase of passenger vehicles.
Click to expand...

Living in the suburbs and having to use a car to get around in the sprawl is so much cheaper... not.
 
Reducing sprawl doesn’t require a heavy hand


April 22, 2011

By SUMEET GULATI

gam-masthead-red.png


Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...l-doesnt-require-a-heavy-hand/article1994455/


Our homes and personal vehicles generate a large share of carbon dioxide emissions. Approximately 40 per cent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While the government’s ‘One Tonne Challenge’ (2004) did not encourage us to reduce our carbon emissions, the right price might. If we paid for our emissions, we would choose the location of our residences, their size and energy efficiency, and our vehicles appropriately. But pricing carbon, especially for individuals, doesn’t sell in politics. In its absence, we pollute too much. We live in big, energy inefficient residences, far from work and other amenities, and operate large, and sometimes multiple, vehicles.

- Based on a study of 48 U.S. metropolitan regions, economists Ed Glaeser and Matt Kahn estimate the difference in carbon emissions from the average household living in a suburb versus the city. Household carbon emissions include those from gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, electricity, and public transit use. Of the 48 regions, in only two, Los Angeles and Detroit, are city dwellers less energy efficient than those in suburbs, and only marginally so. In the Seattle region, the average suburban household emits 2.44 tonnes of carbon dioxide more than the average house in the city. For New York City and Atlanta the corresponding carbon dioxide dividend is 6.72 and 5.99 tonnes, respectively.

- Canadian metropolitan regions with their vibrant and lived-in cores are more like New York than Los Angeles. It is likely that households in our cities also emit far less carbon dioxide than their suburban counterparts. Can we give up sprawl and be encouraged to live in dense cities? Studies find geography to be the most compelling reason limiting urban sprawl. Cities that are bordered by mountains, large bodies of water, or lack water to supply their suburbs sprawl less. While our governments do not have control over geography, they do have other mechanisms.

- There is one policy instrument that raises the cost of suburban development without hurting local landowners: Transferable Development Rights (TDR’s). This instrument has been successfully tried in the U.S. and our governments could improve on their experience. TDR’s allow the sale of development rights from a protected area to areas suitable for densification. In 1998, Chesterfield, N.J., located about 55 kilometres from Philadelphia, adopted a TDR program to protect its rural character. The aim was to divert new development into a dense new site away from prime farmland and the historic city centre. The township required builders to buy TDR’s in order to build in a planned mixed-use site close to the New Jersey Turnpike. Owners could sell 1 development right per 10 acres of farmland.

.....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top