Leaside

[Therion]

Well-designed, modernist townhouses would be a considerable improvement over the current spate of fugly McMansions going up to replace the aging housing stock. I live in a townhouse myself, and have no problem with increased overall density, but ksun made it sound like he wants to turn the neighborhood into the Upper East Side, which seems unnecessary.

 

[ksun]

But why do we need to avoid the very low density in every single neighbourhood? That's what I don't understand. We're not running out of room to build. When you have two kids and two cars like we do, you will appreciate the space. I'm walking distance to 7 (soon to be 8 with Whole Foods) grocery stores, about 50 or so restaurants, dozens of clothing stores, and schools from daycare to grade 12. How's that suburban? How many suburban addresses can say that?

What you're missing is that people who live here appreciate exactly the mix of suburban-looking space that doesn't feel suburban. That's probably you, as someone who occasionally drives through, think of it as non-urban, but I, as a local resident, never would.

because by adding density, we provide more housing to those who would be able to live closer to the city center - where they jobs are, and near transit.
Of course it works great for you that you live in a low density area with spacious houses yet close to the core, what about other people? Shouldn't they be allowed to given the same convenience?

no, we aren't running out of room to build, but at the same time, it is stupid to build 40s condos at Finch/Kennedy or St Clair/Jane while Bayview and Eglinton is primarily lowrise houses with low density. From the transit building perspective, it is also more financially feasible to build rapid transit in denser areas - just think about this: if the entire city has the density of Leaside, we won't have any subways or even LRTs.

I don't care what YOU want or what existing residents want because you only think of "what's in it for *me*" "why change if everything works for *me*"? Urban planning should be about the need of the city and its general population, not some privileged few.

Also, I don't want high density in every single neighbourhood, but it is absolutely ridiculous for Leaside, Rosedale etc being so centrally located to have such low density and suburban layout.

 

[Lenser]

I don't care what YOU want or what existing residents want because you only think of "what's in it for *me*" "why change if everything works for *me*"?

What a great dictator you'd make, ksun. Sounding reasonable on the surface but recklessly spouting fascist dictums about allegedly what's good for the majority. The arrogant intolerance of it is simply breathtaking.

 

[ksun]

What a great dictator you'd make, ksun. Sounding reasonable on the surface but recklessly spouting fascist dictums about allegedly what's good for the majority. The arrogant intolerance of it is simply breathtaking.

Since we are swapping labels, it is miles better than selfish nimbyism I think, if the policy does serve a general good purpose.
Cities are always governed by certain level of "dictating", which means things do happen despite your wishes. I want the Gardiner removed completely, but it is not happening, is it? I am sure the residents at Dundas/Jarvis don't want all the homeless shelters in their neighbourhood either.
For Leaside, it is utterly selfish for local residents to expect the area remain a low density, low rise small town look. It simply makes no sense. Take a look at Eglinton/Laird - it looks 100% suburban.

 

[Lenser]

Selfishness is entirely perceptual. My argument is that you look the one being selfish by trying to impose a set of values, ones conviently aligned to your own, on the rest of the city.

As for the Gardiner, I agree - I'd like to see it go entirely. Alas, I also note your almost pathological fear and loathing for what you commonly call "suburban" or "boring." Your definitions strike me as superficlal and lazy-minded. I'm not sure why you can't be content that the city is growing at a 100,000 people a year and that the core is steadily filling in. It's as if you're deeply anxious that it's not happening fast enough. Given all this, I'm mystified why you remain in this impoverished burg - clearly it remains way beneath your standards.

 

[ksun]

Selfishness is entirely perceptual. My argument is that you look the one being selfish by trying to impose a set of values, ones conviently aligned to your own, on the rest of the city.

As for the Gardiner, I agree - I'd like to see it go entirely. Alas, I also note your almost pathological fear and loathing for what you commonly call "suburban" or "boring." Your definitions strike me as superficlal and lazy-minded. I'm not sure why you can't be content that the city is growing at a 100,000 people a year and that the core is steadily filling in. It's as if you're deeply anxious that it's not happening fast enough. Given all this, I'm mystified why you remain in this impoverished burg - clearly it remains way beneath your standards.

it does remain beneath my standards for sure, but that's a different matter. People can't just move wherever they want.

No, I don't deny I am imposing a set of values, but everyone does that. You are imposing your value about what Leaside should be like too, aren't you? What matters is not who is imposing, since people want different things, so we all impose things on others. It is rather what's best for the city. To many people who don't like it, density is being imposed on downtown, Yonge and Eglinton as well, but since it makes sense for the city, so be it and these people will just need to deal with it. With regard to Leaside, it is the same idea, it is so close to the core/public transit and the center of midtown, therefore increasing the density that provides more housing to people and supports better transit building makes more sense than the current build form.

You are essentially saying: Leaside is mine. I am happy with how things are, please don't increase density so that new comers get to live under the same convenience as I do, as the added density may affect my life modestly and doesn't fit my ideal lifestyle (a quiet low density small town close to a major busy city). Selfishness is perceptual? Not at all. It is right there for everyone to see.

 

[Lenser]

I am not saying "Leaside is mine." That's on you - you seem to think you can read my mind. I'm happy to cure you of your delusion.

Nothing you have said thus far prevents me from concluding that you are totally neurotic about how the pace, direction and nature of this city's growth. You keep talking in broad strokes about "what's best for the city," as if it's some kind of universally agreed-on set of core values you assume everyone naturally ascribes to. Unfortunately, that set of shared values doesn't exist and I expect you already know that. A cursory sampling of posts on this board will readily show you that there's room for plenty of disagreement on what's best for Toronto.

 

[r937]

would you two guys please just get a room already

 

[salsa]

Also, I don't want high density in every single neighbourhood, but it is absolutely ridiculous for Leaside, Rosedale etc being so centrally located to have such low density and suburban layout.

Yes we get it, you don't like leafy, walkable low-rise neighbourhoods. If Leaside is suburban to you, then I guess the same must be true for the Annex. Speaking of centrally located, Leaside is right next to the Yonge & Eglinton area where lots of growth is happening already, with lots more room left to build. It doesn't get more central than that, and I don't see the need for Leaside to become another midtown or Yonge & Bloor anytime soon. A lot of mid-rise buildings are planned for Leaside, and that will be more than enough to accommodate new residents in the coming years.

it does remain beneath my standards for sure, but that's a different matter. People can't just move wherever they want.

Oh yeah? Well look who's talking:

"People can be so provincial. Why don't they move to Vaughan or Milton already. There wont be any density or shadow issues in the next 50 years".
- ksun

 

[donoreo]

would you two guys please just get a room already

How about they just shut up I think we have a case of agree to disagree. My only comment is this: I would much rather be in a low density, boring, area when the zombie apocalypse happens

 

[Lenser]

I think it could work the other way too though. In a high density area you have theoretically more people around to fight off the zombie hordes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Skeezix]

I drove past Leaside yesterday, and from the car window the neighbourhood's ability to repel a zombie apocalypse seemed pretty boring and suburban to me. In terms of Zombie fighting, Eglinton/Laird isn't that different from Kennedy/Finch IMO.

 

[wopchop]

I drove past Leaside yesterday, and from the car window the neighbourhood's ability to repel a zombie apocalypse seemed pretty boring and suburban to me. In terms of Zombie fighting, Eglinton/Laird isn't that different from Kennedy/Finch IMO.

On the flipside, the large right-of-ways would spread out the zombie herds. The tight right-of-ways of downtown Toronto would concentrate the zombies into mega-herds, as you see in downtown Atlanta on The Walking Dead.

 

[James]

No, I'd definitely choose Leaside over, say, Yonge & Dundas, in a zombie apocalypse. The density of downtown, combined with the number of buildings and alleyways, make it too unpredictable for safe travels. You'd never know when a zombie or a horde of zombies will pop out in front of you. In Leaside, your line of sight is much greater, allowing you much more freedom to move and evade said zombies.

 

[r937]

heritage buffs may be interested in knowing that the heritage Elgie house, L‎easide‬'s oldest home, is being prepared to be moved (yup, lifted up and moved)... plan apparently includes demolishing the wings which were later added to the original farmhouse, and one wing is already gone