Mayor John Tory's Toronto

[OneCity]

The prevailing argument is that the 401 spurred that development, not the subway. The Sheppard Line ridership supports this idea.

Why does it have to be one or the other? The selling features which are driving development and the quality is having both the option to commute with excellent public transit access and also having great access to the 401. Subway are part of being "somewhere that people want to be" and density is growing in all of these areas here.

Now whether this line needed to be a subway in the first place is another topic. But since no one is willing to fork of the money need to convert to the tunnel to accept LRT or change the vehicle type within to fit than its subway tunnel, we will very likely be connecting the subway to SCC. The long term future will be solid as the 401 becomes insufferable and we have a complete loop around the City and not a stub

 

[adma]

Frankly, Rosedale station could probably stand to be closed due to low ridership.

I always thought Summerhill was traditionally the likelier first-Yonge-line closure candidate; y'know, a piddly in-between thing without bus connections other than (tokenly) the 97. But actually, neither Rosedale nor Summerhill feel as borderline-Bessarion underused and redundant as they might have seemed, say, 40 years ago. And Rosedale's actually useful for the "north of Davenport" businesses and residences along Yonge, esp. for those going to/coming from the north.

Besides, if you gotta get rid of Rosedale station, might as well get rid of the Rosedale bus as well on, I dunno, starve-the-rich grounds. (And *it's* a busier route than it appears.)

 

[adma]

Ive learned not to worry or care what decisions were made in the past.

I spoke of "I'm talking about a place with decades, nay, centuries (millennia?) of history. I'm talking about a place with depth...". And that's how you respond. Boy, that's a nice way of displaying your philistine insensitivity...

Maybe you can explain better what Rosedale, Forrest Hill and almost every other stop along the BDL and YUS (outside of the direct downtown "U") which surrounded by single family homes off the main streets has to do with the areas in "Scarborough" or any of the locaton where transit is proposed there.

You didn't read my Toronto Life quote, did you. Oh, and I posted it to illuminate the kinds of bone-headed attitudes to be condemned...of course, that'd probably be all lost on you...

You speak of "Scarborough" which is 1/3 of Toronto land mass and 1/4 of the population as simple small neighbourhood constructed the same everywhere. Please let me know which part of Scarborough you are concerned about and what your main issue is with the areas(s) and we can discuss. It is quite diverse.

If you notice, implicitly, I did *not* speak in terms of "simple small neighbourhood constructed the same everywhere". I mean, I posted the Midland Park case, but that's because it's exceptional in its integrity, and there's an authoritative article on it to boot. But look: I don't even *have* to present examples because (a) they can be infinite, and (b) I might as well present *all* of Scarborough in lieu of constituent parts.

Put it this way; to use a, er, "monotonous/cookie cutter" example, I doubt you'd be the sort who can recognize and to some degree appreciate the swaths of postwar "CMHC neighbourhoods" emblematic of Reeve Oliver Crockford's time (think of the horror vacuii of brick storey-and-a-half saltboxes emblematic of neighbourhoods like Wexford). And I'm not speaking strictly from a *preservationist* POV; I'm speaking from a broader "understanding historic (sub)urbanity" POV. Knowing these things and these places give us a richer understanding of the physical genius loci: it makes the so-called "boring" interesting.

From what I can tell, you're incapable of that kind of nuanced perspective. Which isn't about capital-H Historic so much as small-h historic. Like, suburban Wexford is *nothing* to you. It's got no history, got no story--it just *is*. And ironically, that's more likely to typify the perspective of suburb-*haters* than suburb-defenders--of course, maybe I should expect that obtuseness from someone who states that "Ive learned not to worry or care what decisions were made in the past".

Of course, maybe I shouldn't forget the notion of Scarborough being about the people who live there--which is probably paramount to you; but, people without a context? Without a physical, historical context? That is...bleak; bleak indeed. Though maybe that poverty of contextual self-understanding explains why they feel so neglected; they sunk into an ahistorical vacuumland because nobody bothered to check or intercept them along the way.

But re things that concern me: rather than focussing on parts or neighbourhoods, let us focus on something like this.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/the-plague-of-eifs.19836/page-8#post-766786

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/cavehill-jpg.18475/

And consider this, OneCity: if in the name of progress, freshening-up, renewing tired and obsolete fabric, etc, you think the example on the right is preferable to the example on the left, there's no hope for you. None. Whatsoever.

 

[OneCity]

I spoke of "I'm talking about a place with decades, nay, centuries (millennia?) of history. I'm talking about a place with depth...". And that's how you respond. Boy, that's a nice way of displaying your philistine insensitivity...



You didn't read my Toronto Life quote, did you. Oh, and I posted it to illuminate the kinds of bone-headed attitudes to be condemned...of course, that'd probably be all lost on you...



If you notice, implicitly, I did *not* speak in terms of "simple small neighbourhood constructed the same everywhere". I mean, I posted the Midland Park case, but that's because it's exceptional in its integrity, and there's an authoritative article on it to boot. But look: I don't even *have* to present examples because (a) they can be infinite, and (b) I might as well present *all* of Scarborough in lieu of constituent parts.

Put it this way; to use a, er, "monotonous/cookie cutter" example, I doubt you'd be the sort who can recognize and to some degree appreciate the swaths of postwar "CMHC neighbourhoods" emblematic of Reeve Oliver Crockford's time (think of the horror vacuii of brick storey-and-a-half saltboxes emblematic of neighbourhoods like Wexford). And I'm not speaking strictly from a *preservationist* POV; I'm speaking from a broader "understanding historic (sub)urbanity" POV. Knowing these things and these places give us a richer understanding of the physical genius loci: it makes the so-called "boring" interesting.

From what I can tell, you're incapable of that kind of nuanced perspective. Which isn't about capital-H Historic so much as small-h historic. Like, suburban Wexford is *nothing* to you. It's got no history, got no story--it just *is*. And ironically, that's more likely to typify the perspective of suburb-*haters* than suburb-defenders--of course, maybe I should expect that obtuseness from someone who states that "Ive learned not to worry or care what decisions were made in the past".

Of course, maybe I shouldn't forget the notion of Scarborough being about the people who live there--which is probably paramount to you; but, people without a context? Without a physical, historical context? That is...bleak; bleak indeed. Though maybe that poverty of contextual self-understanding explains why they feel so neglected; they sunk into an ahistorical vacuumland because nobody bothered to check or intercept them along the way.

But re things that concern me: rather than focussing on parts or neighbourhoods, let us focus on something like this.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/the-plague-of-eifs.19836/page-8#post-766786

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/cavehill-jpg.18475/

And consider this, OneCity: if in the name of progress, freshening-up, renewing tired and obsolete fabric, etc, you think the example on the right is preferable to the example on the left, there's no hope for you. None. Whatsoever.

"nuanced" discussion? Kinda cryptic to be honest.

You seem to imply I would support such terrible transformations. One of my pet peeves with Scarborough is hearing how the "historic" buildings had been demolished for something with less character and whats worse in my opinion is its replaced with something of far of lower quality in appearance and materials. As that becomes the "new" bar or standard so to speak in which we build. It's a complex discussion that depends on each individual area or buildings current state . Whatever we build new should bring life or character to an area whether it is revitalizing old character or rejuvenated with a new look.

 

[BurlOak]

The prevailing argument is that the 401 spurred that development, not the subway. The Sheppard Line ridership supports this idea.

How many new similar height Condos have been built between Senlac and Faywood or Jane?

 

[JGHali]

Why do you hate Toronto (specifically Bayview Village)?

That seems a rather gross exaggeration of my fairly sarcasm-riddled comment.

How many new similar height Condos have been built between Senlac and Faywood or Jane?

You mean along Wilson or Sheppard? Prior to the last 5 years (generously)? Basically nothing. Faywood and Wilson has had the same low-rise apartments for 30 or 40 (maybe 50 or 60??) years. The area one block north or south of Wilson is comprised exclusively of detached housing. The same goes for the area south of Yorkdale (west of the Allen).

 

[Bob Burnhamthorpe]

I spoke of "I'm talking about a place with decades, nay, centuries (millennia?) of history. I'm talking about a place with depth...". And that's how you respond. Boy, that's a nice way of displaying your philistine insensitivity...



You didn't read my Toronto Life quote, did you. Oh, and I posted it to illuminate the kinds of bone-headed attitudes to be condemned...of course, that'd probably be all lost on you...



If you notice, implicitly, I did *not* speak in terms of "simple small neighbourhood constructed the same everywhere". I mean, I posted the Midland Park case, but that's because it's exceptional in its integrity, and there's an authoritative article on it to boot. But look: I don't even *have* to present examples because (a) they can be infinite, and (b) I might as well present *all* of Scarborough in lieu of constituent parts.

Put it this way; to use a, er, "monotonous/cookie cutter" example, I doubt you'd be the sort who can recognize and to some degree appreciate the swaths of postwar "CMHC neighbourhoods" emblematic of Reeve Oliver Crockford's time (think of the horror vacuii of brick storey-and-a-half saltboxes emblematic of neighbourhoods like Wexford). And I'm not speaking strictly from a *preservationist* POV; I'm speaking from a broader "understanding historic (sub)urbanity" POV. Knowing these things and these places give us a richer understanding of the physical genius loci: it makes the so-called "boring" interesting.

From what I can tell, you're incapable of that kind of nuanced perspective. Which isn't about capital-H Historic so much as small-h historic. Like, suburban Wexford is *nothing* to you. It's got no history, got no story--it just *is*. And ironically, that's more likely to typify the perspective of suburb-*haters* than suburb-defenders--of course, maybe I should expect that obtuseness from someone who states that "Ive learned not to worry or care what decisions were made in the past".

Of course, maybe I shouldn't forget the notion of Scarborough being about the people who live there--which is probably paramount to you; but, people without a context? Without a physical, historical context? That is...bleak; bleak indeed. Though maybe that poverty of contextual self-understanding explains why they feel so neglected; they sunk into an ahistorical vacuumland because nobody bothered to check or intercept them along the way.

But re things that concern me: rather than focussing on parts or neighbourhoods, let us focus on something like this.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/the-plague-of-eifs.19836/page-8#post-766786

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/cavehill-jpg.18475/

And consider this, OneCity: if in the name of progress, freshening-up, renewing tired and obsolete fabric, etc, you think the example on the right is preferable to the example on the left, there's no hope for you. None. Whatsoever.

Word salad.

 

[jje1000]

Interesting seeing how this links with Dunpar and the Judson project- is Di Ciano also at work here- especially if the move clears this site for redevelopment as well?

Controversial Etobicoke concrete plant may be moving to the east end
ML Ready Mix on Judson Street has been the subject of many complaints from neighbourhood residents

A long-standing concrete facility that has created years of frustration for Mimico residents, could be packing up and moving shop.

On Thursday, Coun. Mark Grimes announced that a potential site for ML Ready Mix had been found in the Eastern Port Lands.

"The proximity to the downtown core, highways and development sites make this a more appropriate site for industrial operators such as ML," according to a press release sent by the councillor.

Grimes attributed the potential move to the efforts of a working group created in 2014 to address community concerns about the factory.

Residents of Judson Street in the Mimico neighbourhood of Toronto have been complaining for years about the noise and dust generated by an industrial concrete mixing facility that sits adjacent to many homes. (CBC)

Community concerns
In 2014, CBC Toronto reported that residents in the community said they had been complaining to the city and province about the excessive noise since 2007.

Neighbours who live in the Judson Street area, near Royal York Road, said that as many as 384 trucks were heading to and from the factory every day, alleging that many of them operated outside of permitted hours.

In an email to CBC Toronto this week, Grimes said a zoning amendment would be required to move the facility. He said that he's working with the deputy city manager and city staff to speed up the "necessary approvals to get the correct zoning in place."

"Timing will depend on what type of approvals are required, but I am working to expedite this, and relocate ML out of our community as soon as possible," he said.

A report on the matter will be considered by city council next week.

'The city had nothing to do with it'
Local resident Dan Irwin, who has been leading the charge in the community to have ML Ready Mix shut down, is happy about the news but said he doesn't think Grimes should take any credit.

"Everyone knows that he did absolutely nothing about [the problem] to help us," said Irwin, who lives up the street from the concrete plant. "The city had nothing to do with it, the province had nothing to do with it."

Irwin has contacted the city demanding answers about the timeframe of the move, among other things.

In October 2016, CBC reported that city planning documents showed Dunpar Homes Ltd. had a conditional offer to buy the plant with hopes to build a condo tower — the offer being conditional on city council rezoning those lands.

Nearby lands rezoned
Last June, city council voted to rezone nearby lands on Judson Street to allow for residential development, despite opposition from city planners and Metrolinx. Dunpar has applied to build townhomes on the site.

Metrolinx — which is currently appealing the rezoning — warned councillors the facility might have to close if new residents complained about noise or vibrations coming from the maintenance yard. Yet city council, at the request of Etobicoke councillors Mark Grimes and Justin Di Ciano, voted to rezone the lands — a move that would benefit the developer.


CBC News has previously reported on councillor Di Ciano's ties to Dunpar.

The city's integrity commissioner is now investigating allegations Di Ciano may have benefited "financially and politically" from the developer. They are claims Di Ciano has denied.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...plant-may-be-moving-to-the-east-end-1.4183554

 

[adma]

Word salad.

Scarborough's a salad. That's good.

 

[Bob Burnhamthorpe]

That seems a rather gross exaggeration of my fairly sarcasm-riddled comment.



You mean along Wilson or Sheppard? Prior to the last 5 years (generously)? Basically nothing. Faywood and Wilson has had the same low-rise apartments for 30 or 40 (maybe 50 or 60??) years. The area one block north or south of Wilson is comprised exclusively of detached housing. The same goes for the area south of Yorkdale (west of the Allen).

I was being sarcastic, too.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I would like to comment on the idea that subways generate density. No not necessarily instantly; however they do catalyze density and the reaction times can be very long! 50 years is NOT a long time. Note that land prices are only now putting development pressure on Bloor Line properties and we have as a result major development proposals at Bathurst, Dufferin, Dundas West, as well as many localized developments and infills all along this stretch. Subways don't produce density overnight on their own but they do shape development patterns.

 

[Bob Burnhamthorpe]

I would like to comment on the idea that subways generate density. No not necessarily instantly; however they do catalyze density and the reaction times can be very long! 50 years is NOT a long time. Note that land prices are only now putting development pressure on Bloor Line properties and we have as a result major development proposals at Bathurst, Dufferin, Dundas West, as well as many localized developments and infills all along this stretch. Subways don't produce density overnight on their own but they do shape development patterns.

Very well said.

 

[Videodrome]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/881591811680206848
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/881594216433963008

China puts us to shame when it comes to building subway systems...

 

[W. K. Lis]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/881591811680206848
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/881594216433963008

China puts us to shame when it comes to building subway systems...

You do know that China has a population of 1,373,541,278 versus Canada's population of 35,151,728?

From link.

Based on 2010 census data, the largest cities are the four centrally administered municipalities, which include dense urban areas, suburbs, and large rural areas: Chongqing (28.84 million), Shanghai (23.01 million), Beijing (19.61 million), and Tianjin (12.93 million). There are 105 cities with over 1 million people in the metropolitan area as of 2015 and is the only country to have that many cities with over 1 million people in the metropolitan area as of 2015.

 

[Videodrome]

I know that, but we can't even build a one stop subway line...