|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
That would require the Queensway to be recognized as a transit priority for the City and/or province. And it should be; development should follow infrastructure (planned or otherwise). Failing that, infrastructure should follow development, at the minimum…Maybe if the entire Queensway is developed from royal York to sherway then transit can be prioritised. More density would also help those businesses directly on queensway as there would be more people walking. I thought more housing was good since we are in a housing crisis.
Maybe if the entire Queensway is developed from royal York to sherway then transit can be prioritised. More density would also help those businesses directly on queensway as there would be more people walking. I thought more housing was good since we are in a housing crisis.
I wasn’t actually. I’m on this section of the queens way multiple times a week. It’s very clear that the entire stretch is going to be developed over time. If the area is going to be developed then why shouldn’t we shoot for density. The infrastructure is going to need to be upgraded sure. But that’s not impossible. Also if you’re at a major intersection like this it isn’t hard to take a bus to the Bloor subway. Maybe queensway can get Ontario line west to connect to Sherway.I see you're being contrarian again, and facetious.
I won't waste my time further.
There isn’t much transit in place at Humber bay shores or the west way or east way. There isn’t much transit in place at Sherway. There was limited transit in place at STC yet lots of transit at Kennedy station however limited things were built at Kennedy where as you can build anything at STC.I see exactly where you guys are coming from but opposing these types of developments until the transit is in place first is the perfect way to guarantee neither happen and is a classic NIMBY tactic.
...although the former here maybe a good thing.I see exactly where you guys are coming from but opposing these types of developments until the transit is in place first is the perfect way to guarantee neither happen and is a classic NIMBY tactic.
This is still quite a lot of density for the area as things are, and are planned to be. From a built form (height) perspective it is OK, but that Isn't saying much. Nearby land uses, transportation, and servicing infra are all underequipped. You are subjecting residents to a terrible environment, and everyone else to the traffic they will create. And that is directly due to the density of the project.I wasn’t actually. I’m on this section of the queens way multiple times a week. It’s very clear that the entire stretch is going to be developed over time. If the area is going to be developed then why shouldn’t we shoot for density. The infrastructure is going to need to be upgraded sure. But that’s not impossible. Also if you’re at a major intersection like this it isn’t hard to take a bus to the Bloor subway. Maybe queensway can get Ontario line west to connect to Sherway.
Well I don’t know. We shouldn’t be building at the west way or east way then or a million other sites. If the only places we’re going to say people should build is in the core or subway routes you can get me on board. But we are building randomly everywhere without logic so why is this the hard line that we’re adamant not to cross. Especially since there is a bunch of mid rises in the area going up. Development is here already so I simply don’t understand this is the hard line.This is still quite a lot of density for the area as things are, and are planned to be. From a built form (height) perspective it is OK, but that Isn't saying much. Nearby land uses, transportation, and servicing infra are all underequipped. You are subjecting residents to a terrible environment, and everyone else to the traffic they will create. And that is directly due to the density of the project.
Is the area a good contender for a close-in, dense node? Sure, but that requires planning work to realize. This project can be a match to start that fire, but in isolation it's quite weak.... would you live here? Without a car? I wouldn't...
You are right, development is happening willy-nilly... It's not a good thing, and you are right to ask why we are drawing the line here. I would argue that those calling this out are being consistent- in this case, it rises into an issue because of the scale, particularly relative to the context. Because this is a large, dense plan, it requires more serious consideration, and asking whether this is a good idea.Well I don’t know. We shouldn’t be building at the west way or east way then or a million other sites. If the only places we’re going to say people should build is in the core or subway routes you can get me on board. But we are building randomly everywhere without logic so why is this the hard line that we’re adamant not to cross. Especially since there is a bunch of mid rises in the area going up. Development is here already so I simply don’t understand this is the hard line.
Would I live there isn’t the question. People live in all sorts of random areas which aren’t my favourite. Would I live there without a car. I wouldn’t even live downtown without a car for a number of reasons so I’m probably the wrong person to ask about that as well. Just because one owns a car does not mean they use it for everything they do. But I want a car.
When I think of employment lands I think of office places or factories. What we have on Queensway is a run down mall at Kipling. A movie theatre at Islington, an IKEA, and a Cosco. All of these things can either be moved or placed within development. We’ve had for years movie theatres that were much smaller. We have ikeas that are basically places you just go in and order the products. We have had malls redeveloped. And are we really saying a cosco is an employment land worthy designation or something worth keeping at the cost of an urban development? I just don’t get it. Put a streetcar or LRT on Queensway and call it a day. But the way sometimes we talk on here we would rather people live in Milton.You are right, development is happening willy-nilly... It's not a good thing, and you are right to ask why we are drawing the line here. I would argue that those calling this out are being consistent- in this case, it rises into an issue because of the scale, particularly relative to the context. Because this is a large, dense plan, it requires more serious consideration, and asking whether this is a good idea.
I think the confusion here is that It's not a NIMBY argument, but a compatibility one. Redeveloping a strip mall in a suburb is one thing, but a strip mall surrounded by employment uses is another. For this to not suck, the whole area needs to be re-envisioned, which it has not been. Forgetting the transit, and how protective the City is of employment lands, significant work has gone into planning for the Golden Mile, VMC, and Yonge North etc, largely so that these can work in an otherwise unforgiving context. And personally, VMC doesn't even do it all too well anyway.
So It's not just that i'ts in the 'middle of nowhere'; it's that this nowhere sucks, if not actively hostile to resident health, with nothing on the books to change that. Perhaps the developer is proposing this precisely to initiate some planning- it's not uncommon. But the developer also knows this is a gigantic ask as proposed.
And yes, you gave me a fair answer- I meant to pose the question of 'would you live here' as a quality of life question. Do we expect living here to be nice based on whats on the books? I'd say no; sure people could live here, but knowing what we know, I don't think I'd want to. The point was to consider what kind of lifestyle these people are going to have, and how that plays out somewhere like this.
A subway extension would resolve this, sure, but that's also not a practical expectation for a single development, unless you truly do get to MCC/VMC levels of growth.
