Markham to Become a City?

[Chuck]

Vaughan and Markham's population density, though similar, is planned differently. Although both are building an equal number of condos, Vaughan's tend to be in dreadful locations such as Jane and Rutherford, and will contribute as much to its car culture as a lower density subdivision. Markham's up and coming high density areas tend to be along transit friendly streets such as Yonge, Steeles, and Highway 7, and actually have a chance to fix things.

Markham's condos will help to de-suburbanize the area and reduce car dependence. Vaughan's condos only add fuel to the fire - if people are going to use cars anyway, the last thing you want to do is cram more people into the same area, causing even more gridlock. The best thing for the GTA would be to cease development in Vaughan altogether, be it high, medium, or low density housing, or a subway extension past Steeles.

 

[Dan416]

Town or City, doesn't make any difference really. Let the "Towns" of Markham and Oakville continue merrily along

 

[doady]

Vaughan and Markham's population density, though similar, is planned differently. Although both are building an equal number of condos, Vaughan's tend to be in dreadful locations such as Jane and Rutherford, and will contribute as much to its car culture as a lower density subdivision.

Neither Jane or Rutherford have bus routes that can beefit from higher densities? That's strange.

Markham's up and coming high density areas tend to be along transit friendly streets such as Yonge, Steeles, and Highway 7, and actually have a chance to fix things.

Markham's condos will help to de-suburbanize the area and reduce car dependence. Vaughan's condos only add fuel to the fire - if people are going to use cars anyway, the last thing you want to do is cram more people into the same area, causing even more gridlock. The best thing for the GTA would be to cease development in Vaughan altogether, be it high, medium, or low density housing, or a subway extension past Steeles.

In another thread, you claim that density is the reason for the high ridership of suburban 416. But now it seems density is not so important after all? Design is more important now?

But suburban 416 is not exactly what I would call transit-friendly either. The new high-rises in Vaughan can't be any worse than all those tower-in-a-parks in Toronto.

 

[Disparishun]

Vaughan and Markham's population density, though similar, is planned differently. Although both are building an equal number of condos, Vaughan's tend to be in dreadful locations such as Jane and Rutherford, and will contribute as much to its car culture as a lower density subdivision. Markham's up and coming high density areas tend to be along transit friendly streets such as Yonge, Steeles, and Highway 7, and actually have a chance to fix things.

Yeah, I'm dubious about this, too -- lots of the condos I see going up in up and coming high density area are along transit friendly Vaughan streets like Yonge, Steeles, and Bathurst. Not so much Highway 7, though, I agree.

Vaughan's condos only add fuel to the fire - if people are going to use cars anyway, the last thing you want to do is cram more people into the same area, causing even more gridlock.

I don't understand. A dense node should surely promote transit development to that node.

If you are saying that there is commuter-style, GO-oriented development taking place that does not encourage walkability, as opposed to smarter, urban-friendlier development that builds around nodes, I would agree that that is taking place in some spots.

But surely not everywhere in Vaughan. What is going on around the Promenade, between Clark and Centre, and going west from Bathurst, is a good example of the kind of retrofitting we need. It ain't perfect, but it's sort of headed in the right direction.

The best thing for the GTA would be to cease development in Vaughan altogether, be it high, medium, or low density housing, or a subway extension past Steeles.

Did you have a bad experience at Vaughan Mills or something? You are taking certain parts of this vast, sprawling city for the whole. There are lots of pockets of Vaughan, and they are simply not all identical. Aborting the Yonge extension into Vaughan would, I would argue, be a massive non-response to enormous demand and growing density.

 

[Chuck]

Let me clarify. When I refer to "Vaughan," I mean everything west of Dufferin and/or north of Highway 7. In fact, Thornhill is a great part of the 905 area that is definitely deserving of an extension of the Yonge subway 10 years ago. However, when Thornhill is excluded, the rest of Vaughan is an excellent example of how not to build a city, and where not to extend the subway.

As for density, many of the condos being built in Vaughan (outside of Thornhill) are high end luxury condos set well back from the street and surrounded by gates. The condos node at Jane and Rutherford is not only a great example of this, but it's far smaller than most nodes even in the rest of the 905 area, anyway. Without a doubt, everyone who lives in that condo will drive to the mall located right across the street.

 

[Disparishun]

Let me clarify. When I refer to "Vaughan," I mean everything west of Dufferin and/or north of Highway 7. In fact, Thornhill is a great part of the 905 area that is definitely deserving of an extension of the Yonge subway 10 years ago. However, when Thornhill is excluded, the rest of Vaughan is an excellent example of how not to build a city, and where not to extend the subway.

I'm not going to argue too much on other parts of Vaughan -- don't know them too well, although I wonder what is up in Maple these days. On the Thornhill part of Vaughan, though, I'd argue that while things seem to be headed in the right direction (they are certainly densifying these days), there is a long, long way to go.

 

[matix]

The Town of Pickering became the City of Pickering in 2000 (if i remember the year correctly).

Pickering never really billed it's self as a cutesy Town like markham or oakville, so politically, it wasn't much of an issue. as far as i recall, the public didn't seem to care.

The driving force behind the change was to raise, as funny as it may sound, pickerings international profile. staff reports on the change stated that while the city/town moniker doesn't mean much to business here.. internationally, places would be less likely to do business with a "Town" then they would a "City". so it was changed to pursue and attract more international investment.

to me.. it really doesn't matter.

 

[JasonParis]

I believe Pickering became a city on January 1, 2000 and have given themselves the moniker "Canada's Millennium City."