News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.6K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 981     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

Major Mac and Highway 48, Proposal

But I'm talking about reality. The majority of grownups (ie 26+) using the TTC for example, are newish immigrants and those with lower paying jobs. That's just the way it is. If I were extremely wealthy ($500,000+ income) I would NEVER use public transit....no matter what city I was in or how awesome the transit was.
 
that is true...

also if your making 500k you likely not going to work early in the morning or 5 days a week 52 times a year...
 
It's true only if "lower paying jobs" means making less than half a million a year. Plenty of middle to upper class folks take the TTC...they prefer the subway, of course, which makes sense because they tend to live near subways.
 
^ But realistically, who do you think is really making up the majority of TTC rider? No one is saying that there are richer people taking it, but for the most part, isn't it the lower class and lower middle class making up the majority of every day user?
 
Of course newish immigrants and lowish income people are the majority of people taking transit...they make up the majority of people in Toronto!

Besides, there aren't any rich people in the new Bur Oak area of Markham. And if there were, they wouldn't take YRT buses that come every half hour and go nowhere.
 
really NY and Chicgaco are the only cities I have seen in America where you also see office worker types taking transit.
 
lordmandeep said:
really NY and Chicgaco are the only cities I have seen in America where you also see office worker types taking transit.
Click to expand...

Compared to here?

Most people I know who work downtown and make over 100k take the subway, actually all of them (that's 10+ people).

If they had to take buses I think it would be more likely they would drive or take a taxi
 
seems like a fairly dense development for the suburbs! The area used by parking is actually quite small for the number of commercial and retail locations there. If you notice, several of the parking areas are labelled as parking decks, therefore taking a significant amount of parking vertical, saving on land use. Having said that I do always cringe when I see these mega developments on "farmland"...
 
urbandreamer said:
Having lived near Major Mac way Bac I often wondered why Mcdonald's doesn't have a special Toronto burger called the....Major Mac!

Are they ruining the highway? Woodbridge folks, do take photos for us landlocked urbanites showing current development in Vaughn! I haven't been up Kleinburg/M Mac way in about 5 years so I'm curious: what's the area developing like? Photos please....
Click to expand...

Actually Woodbridge is no better. Sprawl still rules here.

Mind you there has been a handful of low rise condo projects in and around the old centre (downtown?) of Woodbridge. They've actually brought some life back to the area after it had been a near wasteland for 30 yrs.

Actually I've had a bit of an argument going with a Facebook group that has been complaining about the new condos ruining the Woodbridge that 'they' remember. One development in particular was an old rubber factory (balloons and stuff) that had been literally abandoned for 20 yrs before burning to the ground about 15 yrs ago. Now I don't mind protecting historical buildings but when the site is abandoned and burned out are we expected to leave the site as is as some sort of testimony to what used to be there? A plaque would do just as good.

Mind you the irony is that they all seemed to live (and grow up) in the area during the 60's and 70's and most have moved north to places like Barrie and other small communities around there. They don't realize that during the 80's the area was essentially a ghost town/bedroom community for Toronto and that them moving away may have contributed to that downturn. Now they look back as Woodbridge begins some small attempt at urbanization and raise their arms in protest.
 
Commercial, industrial, residential, low density, high density...no matter what is built, it would make me kind of sad. I'm not even 25, however even I remember when this entire area was rural. I went to camp just east of here, and I remember when Major Mack was 2 lanes wide east of Woodbine, cornfields stretching to the horizon, and feeling like I really was in the country.

Growth is eventually going to occur here anyway, but I'd rather see the brownfield and underdeveloped sites in Markham built out first. Even if greenfield growth could be postponed by 10 years we'd be better off. Today, greenfield developments are just not necessary.
 
jeicow said:
^ But realistically, who do you think is really making up the majority of TTC rider? No one is saying that there are richer people taking it, but for the most part, isn't it the lower class and lower middle class making up the majority of every day user?
Click to expand...

Depends what station you are talking about. I think the majority of people taking transit getting on from Old Mill southward are far more a diverse economic group than you think. People taking long bus rides from the suburbs are probably in the economic classes you are talking about. I think the reality is that convenient transit will be taken by many, inconvenient transit will only by those who can't find another way.
 
Chuck said:
Commercial, industrial, residential, low density, high density...no matter what is built, it would make me kind of sad. I'm not even 25, however even I remember when this entire area was rural. I went to camp just east of here, and I remember when Major Mack was 2 lanes wide east of Woodbine, cornfields stretching to the horizon, and feeling like I really was in the country.

Growth is eventually going to occur here anyway, but I'd rather see the brownfield and underdeveloped sites in Markham built out first. Even if greenfield growth could be postponed by 10 years we'd be better off. Today, greenfield developments are just not necessary.
Click to expand...

See I'm with you on greenfield development. Hell I can remember a time when there was a drive in theatre on 27 and Langstaff. Plus, the rest of the area from Langstaff up to Major Mac was farmland as well. In fact that's one reason I'm not supporting a 427 extension (especially if it heads North East into Barrie instead of more North Westerly). But when people are complaining about development on lands that have been developed but that it is abandoned or unused then I've got a problem. Especially when the criticism is coming from outside the community, it's NIMBY'ism for the sake of NIMBY'ism (or Not In My Old Backyard) and anti any form of development. If a site is abandoned then isn't it a better candidate for development than farmland?

I guess if you weren't here to see the wasteland that downtown woodbridge was during the late 80's and 90's, not even a supermarket could survive there. And all you have are memories from 30-40 years ago then the woodbridge of today would be a real shock. That said while it might not be better than it was 40 years ago, the situation today is certainly better than it was 10 to 15 years ago.

One of my favorite areas is downtowns Streetsville. It totally has the feel of a real small town with a small town 'downtown strip'. The area is surrounded by low to mid rise buildings and has tons of pedestrian activity. All despite being stuck in a sea of urban sprawl. I'd like for Woodbridge to strive for this feeling and it starts by putting people back in the old downtown and bringing it back to life.

Ah I'm venting. Sorry for taking the thread off topic. If anyone wants to reply maybe a pm would be best.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top