|
|
|
As politicians do everywhere. If you propose high-rises near subway stations elsewhere, you don't think there will be pushback from existing residents?
How did NYCC come to be? It was championed politically by crazy Mel. There will always be push back from residents, I mean even people in the path of SSE are protesting about losing their homes... But politicians have to rise above the fray if they genuinely want Scarborough to progress.
NYCC is basically what is being proposed at SCC. So what's the complaint. You walk two blocks from Yonge (in some cases less) and you have SFH.
My issue is that NYCC + Sheppard (along the subway) gets the same treatment, but Kennedy & Eg doesn't. Just doesn't make sense, regardless of what's done at SCC. Why put our high rise eggs all in one basket.
Why aren't people clamouring to build high rises around Main Station or Greenwood
The avenue concept is the right concept for Kennedy-Eg specifically because of the Eglinton LRT.
I agree that the midrise intensification along the entirety Eglinton Avenue is the right approach. However, in the blocks surrounding major transit nodes, we should allow intensification greater than the 25 metre limit that Kennedy/Eglinton is capped at, to better take advantage of the excellent transit facilities in the area. This is more or less what happens at Yonge/Eglinton and Sheppard/Yonge: mid-rise intensification increasing to high-rise intensification as we get closer to transit nodes.
I don't see any benefit to capping Kennedy/Eglinton at 25 metres, short of satiating NIMBY concerns.
If I had a penny for each time individuals and organizations in the planning community called for lands around subway stations to be released for intensification, I might be 30 cents richer right now. Heck, this isn't even only a concern in the planning community. I've read numerous editorials in the major papers about this issue.
I agree that the midrise intensification along the entirety Eglinton Avenue is the right approach. However, in the blocks surrounding major transit nodes, we should allow intensification greater than the 25 metre limit that Kennedy/Eglinton is capped at, to better take advantage of the excellent transit facilities in the area. This is more or less what happens at Yonge/Eglinton and Sheppard/Yonge: mid-rise intensification increasing to high-rise intensification as we get closer to transit nodes.
I don't see any benefit to capping Kennedy/Eglinton at 25 metres, short of satiating NIMBY concerns.
If you can't see the difference from this stop and the remaining lrt route then you are blind or willfully ignorant.
No amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
The city's built form isn't like Haussman's Paris.
Insults aren't going to further the debate.
See my prior posts. I specifically said there's room for improvement. What I dispute though, is your contention that the city is somehow pushing density at SCC over Kennedy-Eg. I see no evidence of that. What I see is that the city has only ever bothered to change zoning for SCC in light of the SSE.
I am very open to evidence. It's just that you can't seem to furnish any.
You on the other hand justify away why this area hasn't been developed nor is planned to be developed
We are living in a post transit city world and miller is no Longer The mayor. If you want subways with huge spacing between stations then you need to support high density at the station.Wasn't that the entire point of Transit City though? To make Toronto more European in essence. And to move away from the towers-in-a-park concept?
So you've gone from insults to putting my words in my mouth.
If you are interested in civil and fact based debate, I'm out. I don't do conspiracy theories.
We are living in a post transit city world
Just block me if you're so sensitive
