Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Who thinks these cheap ass developers in Toronto building all these cheap looking condos are going to give millions to build subway stations?

If the air rights were imposed by the city, they would still build on top of stations. They would just overcharge whoever buys or rent in their buildings...for a profit of course and there will always be people willing to pay extra to have a station right at their doorsteps
 
Markham's Langstaff Gateway - 1,000 Residents & Jobs Per Hectare
At full build-out, Markham targets 32,000 residents and 15,000 workers — a density of 1,000 people and jobs per hectare. That is more than twice the provincial target of 400 people and jobs per hectare. To put it in perspective, only parts of downtown Toronto and the Yonge-Eglinton area meet that target. Langstaff aims to more than double it. “If all of it gets built, the densities become a reality,” Mayor Frank Scarpitti said. “It is unique, maybe the first of its kind.”

As to costing out the station.
From Calthorpe
Client: Town of Markham (Markham, Canada)
Type: Station Area Plan | Urban Infill
Program: TOD Plan for 47 ha (116 ac) site |
15,000 units
35k sq m (390k sq ft) retail
295k sq m (3,150k sq ft) office
13k sq m (145k sq ft) civic uses[/QUOTE]

15,000 units a special levy of $10,000 unit would raise $150,000,000.
$20 per square foot levy on retail space would raise $7.8 million.
That leaves $13.40 per foot on the office space for you to raise the $200,000,000 needed for the station.

These numbers are for the Langstaff Gateway precinct only. If we allow for Special levies in the wider Highway 7 to Steeles corridor, we could likely cut these figures. Oh, and the condo developers don't pay these, the condo owners, landlords and business owners would n the end pay these fees, which to be honest are payment on a direct benefit.
 
The Richmond Hill subway extension does not need a park and ride. A few thousand park and ride spaces is enough to fill at most a couple of trains in the morning rush hour. Adding a subway station for hundreds of million dollars to serve a few parking spaces is a waste of money.

I think Salsa already handled this (and I always like seeing those pictures) but, yeah, that parking is needed. You have to remember that a) there will be no parking at all north of Finch. b) It will handle hundreds of cars (at least) that now drive to Finch. Having those cars not haul down Yonge Street to Finch is a huge benefit and that parking lot is necessary to the proper functioning of the growth node and the transit infrastructure there.

If we HAD to pare down the stations I would say you do Steeles/Langstaff/Richmond Hill Centre. Cummer is so close to Finch, that's not a huge loss in the short term. Clark, as an intermediate station, is tougher but I can see the short-term trade-off there. That said, building a line and adding stations is rather a new idea here so we'll have to see if that actually has any traction.
 
I think Salsa already handled this (and I always like seeing those pictures) but, yeah, that parking is needed. You have to remember that a) there will be no parking at all north of Finch. b) It will handle hundreds of cars (at least) that now drive to Finch. Having those cars not haul down Yonge Street to Finch is a huge benefit and that parking lot is necessary to the proper functioning of the growth node and the transit infrastructure there.

If we HAD to pare down the stations I would say you do Steeles/Langstaff/Richmond Hill Centre. Cummer is so close to Finch, that's not a huge loss in the short term. Clark, as an intermediate station, is tougher but I can see the short-term trade-off there. That said, building a line and adding stations is rather a new idea here so we'll have to see if that actually has any traction.
There is already parking at the Richmond Hill Bus Terminal. How about we get people out of their cars?
 
As usual you are clueless about transit. Those stations are not there to serve drivers. They will also be used by GO, Viva and YRT which already have high ridership. It will also allow major development in Richmond Hill centre and Langstaff, which by now have been fully planned. If you would bother to read the reports, you will see that the ridership exists and that the subway will significantly improve travel times north of Finch. But no, lets build the Shepard subway instead (because Yonge & Bloor is not building new offices).

Will Richmond Hill Centre ever actually look like that? This looks like another pie in the sky redevelopment proposal like Vaughan Centre which will fail. It is a really awkward site to redevelop, with the 407, high voltage power lines, railway tracks and cemeteries to work around. It seems like another one of these exercises to create a rendering of lots of tall buildings in order to justify a subway extension that will have at best OK ridership (though much better than the Vaughan extension).

Compare this to Yonge & Sheppard or Yonge & Bloor which are actually desirable areas and could easily see lots of residential and commercial growth in the future. The fact that Yonge & Sheppard has more office buildings under construction than Yonge & Bloor is just one of those strange but true facts. I know Yonge & Sheppard only has 1 office building under construction right now but it could easily become much larger in the future with lowered commercial taxes and the Sheppard subway extension. As for Yonge & Bloor, it seems that the ultra-luxury condos are crowding out the office market in that area, and also severe traffic congestion on Bloor Street and inconvenient highway access hurts that area. Office developers want to be near the highway which seems to mean the Gardiner near Union Station right now, and could potentially mean Sheppard & Yonge near the 401 if that area ever comes back. The traffic on those highways is bad but nowhere near as bad as on Bloor St in Yorkville. The point I am trying to make with the "no new office buildings at Y&B" is that extending the Bloor-Danforth subway along McCowan makes little sense because every station except Scarborough Centre on that extension has no new development near it and Y&B has no job growth so all the traffic will just be transferring to the Yonge line to go to Union or going somewhere else like Mississauga. Either the Stouffville line or Sheppard subway + Don Mills subway make far more sense for serving STC.
 
I thought it was a good report because they really focussed on the need to make GO more of an express type service and they slaughtered the Transit City lines' raison d'etre.

However, I disagree that the DRL and Eglinton lines are bad. DRL is needed regardless of what happens with GO, and Eglinton could just do with some stations eliminated.

The caveat that the writer used to work for UTDC shows in the writer's bias for ALRT, whereas subway or LRT could perform the exact same function, depending on the case.
 
It's been suggested that RHC will be the densest neighbourhood in Canada including 40 skyscrapers.

Well, not quite.
The Markham half is much denser than RHC (which is pretty dense, yes). Even so, it won't quite be downtown densities. Still, it will likely be the densest SUBURBAN neighbourhood in Canada, if not the continent.

(For anyone not clear on the geography. The massing model above with the white towers is RHC, looking eastish, with Yonge running roughly left/right in the foreground. The Markham development is the one with the yellow/orange towers, looking north, with Yonge on the left. Everything in the handsome Viva rendering, looking north on Yonge, would be in RHC.)

There is already parking at the Richmond Hill Bus Terminal. How about we get people out of their cars?

You're not paying attention, with all due respect. Look at the pictures posted above. If there is a subway at that location, there won't be a parking lot or a Silver City or a Home Depot That will all be redeveloped. The plan is effectively for no surface parking at all at RHC, hence the need for Langstaff/Longbridge. Picture them as 2 halves of the same station.

Will Richmond Hill Centre ever actually look like that? This looks like another pie in the sky redevelopment proposal like Vaughan Centre which will fail. It is a really awkward site to redevelop, with the 407, high voltage power lines, railway tracks and cemeteries to work around. It seems like another one of these exercises to create a rendering of lots of tall buildings in order to justify a subway extension that will have at best OK ridership (though much better than the Vaughan extension).

Compare this to Yonge & Sheppard or Yonge & Bloor which are actually desirable areas and could easily see lots of residential and commercial growth in the future. The fact that Yonge & Sheppard has more office buildings under construction than Yonge & Bloor is just one of those strange but true facts.

You're kind of missing the point. The idea is not to compete with or beat Yonge/Bloor. The idea is to build communities like these instead of the sprawling crap they've been building in the suburbs.

Will RHC ever look like that? There's already high-rise in that corridor and if they build a subway (and improve GO and build the Transitway) you can bet that the big box in the RHC area will go and so will the Markham/Langstaff lands which are raring to go.

We could sit here and try to guess the future of suburban development - maybe the people who saw the first plans for post-1950 sprawl thought it was all "pie in the sky" too - but it's a plan and an admirable one and it's in place, on paper.I don't doubt there were also people who scoffed at the plans for North York Centre or, before that, extending the subway from Eglinton up to the farmland at Yonge and Finch.

If you want to argue that it's improbable development will continue north along Yonge Street or that the line will have "at best OK ridership," that's certainly your prerogative. Personally, I think it's a pretty good bet based on what I've been seen going on in suburbs like Markham and Mississauga already.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that Yonge/Highway 7 is one of the strangest shaped sites I can think of to redevelop. There are two oddly shaped parcels of land separated by the 407 with a rail line cutting the southern parcel in half and cemeteries to the south. The northern site has high voltage lines running through it. Are there any real developers actually interested in building this development or is this just a fantasy rendering by the urban planning department?

I could easily see high density development along Yonge south of Royal Orchard Blvd. Also the more established areas of Yonge & Sheppard and Yonge & Eglinton have many vacant sites which can be redeveloped. I suspect that Yonge & Highway 7 redevelopment will fail, as will Jane & Highway 7.
 
Well, not quite.
The Markham half is much denser than RHC (which is pretty dense, yes). Even so, it won't quite be downtown densities. Still, it will likely be the densest SUBURBAN neighbourhood in Canada, if not the continent.

(For anyone not clear on the geography. The massing model above with the white towers is RHC, looking eastish, with Yonge running roughly left/right in the foreground. The Markham development is the one with the yellow/orange towers, looking north, with Yonge on the left. Everything in the handsome Viva rendering, looking north on Yonge, would be in RHC.)



You're not paying attention, with all due respect. Look at the pictures posted above. If there is a subway at that location, there won't be a parking lot or a Silver City or a Home Depot That will all be redeveloped. The plan is effectively for no surface parking at all at RHC, hence the need for Langstaff/Longbridge. Picture them as 2 halves of the same station.



You're kind of missing the point. The idea is not to compete with or beat Yonge/Bloor. The idea is to build communities like these instead of the sprawling crap they've been building in the suburbs.

Will RHC ever look like that? There's already high-rise in that corridor and if they build a subway (and improve GO and build the Transitway) you can bet that the big box in the RHC area will go and so will the Markham/Langstaff lands which are raring to go.

We could sit here and try to guess the future of suburban development - maybe the people who saw the first plans for post-1950 sprawl thought it was all "pie in the sky" too - but it's a plan and an admirable one and it's in place, on paper.I don't doubt there were also people who scoffed at the plans for North York Centre or, before that, extending the subway from Eglinton up to the farmland at Yonge and Finch.

If you want to argue that it's improbable development will continue north along Yonge Street or that the line will have "at best OK ridership," that's certainly your prerogative. Personally, I think it's a pretty good bet based on what I've been seen going on in suburbs like Markham and Mississauga already.

Oh ok, I see it now. Thanks TJ. I think RHC will sucessful, but I would be careful in citing NYCC or Islington CC or STC as examples. All those areas are low level failures imo. NYCC especially.
 
The problem is that Yonge/Highway 7 is one of the strangest shaped sites I can think of to redevelop. There are two oddly shaped parcels of land separated by the 407 with a rail line cutting the southern parcel in half and cemeteries to the south. The northern site has high voltage lines running through it. Are there any real developers actually interested in building this development or is this just a fantasy rendering by the urban planning department?

fair point; good question.

The north half (RHC) is primarily owned by one developer and the south half (Langstaff) by two developers. In the latter case, they worked WITH Markham to hire Peter Calthorpe to design that plan. That is their plan. They want to build it. The only way the can make money on that weird site is by doing dense, transit-oriented development. You can't cram enough single family homes in there to make it profitable, clearly. But make no mistake, the developers are totally behind that plan.

The Richmond Hill half is a bit more complicated because Metrus has leases with Cineplex and Home Depot and all those big box folk but if there is really going to be a subway, they'll get out of them. Richmond Hill has less greenfield space than Markham so whereas Markham really wants to intensify, RH has to. Their site is actually less constrained than Markham's, and it's where the actual mobility hub/subway terminal will be. So, the developer is a bit less onside BUT there's only one landowner and when push comes to shove, I don't doubt they'll make the right move there.

Oh ok, I see it now. Thanks TJ. I think RHC will sucessful, but I would be careful in citing NYCC or Islington CC or STC as examples. All those areas are low level failures imo. NYCC especially.

I wouldn't cite Islington or STC at all. NYCC is more of a mixed success. (Actually, I don't really know Islington but I guess that alone proves it doesn't work :) )The intensification is totally there and there's actually some decent street life along Yonge; they just didn't get the jobs. That's a big catch, I grant you, but the wall of condos going up along Yonge is a big part of what they wanted to achieve. Getting the jobs will be the big challenge for RHC and Langstaff. The residential is much less of a concern if the transit is there.
 
Last edited:
fair point; good question.

The north half (RHC) is primarily owned by one developer and the south half (Langstaff) by two developers. In the latter case, they worked WITH Markham to hire Peter Calthorpe to design that plan. That is their plan. They want to build it. The only way the can make money on that weird site is by doing dense, transit-oriented development. You can't cram enough single family homes in there to make it profitable, clearly. But make no mistake, the developers are totally behind that plan.

It doesn't seem like that development would ever be successful. The development is cut in two by the 407 so there are a lack of pedestrian connections, and the 407 and freight trains on the Richmond Hill line are noisy. There also seems to be a lack of planned schools, shops (other than the big box stores this development is supposed to replace) or other amenities. Somehow I think you would have to cover part of the 407 (insanely expensive and not part of the plan) to make this area at all desirable. Redevelopment of the length of Thornhill further south would likely be much more successful, as this is a nicer area.

I think it is really, really difficult to make redevelopment of a strangely shaped site viable unless you have something like the Hudson Yards in New York, where you have extremely high property values. Richmond Hill does not have the property values of Manhattan.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't seem like that development would ever be successful. The development is cut in two by the 407 so there are a lack of pedestrian connections, and the 407 and freight trains on the Richmond Hill line are noisy.
Development near the lake has been successful despite trains, planes, and the Gardiner. Why would it necessarily be unsuccessful in Richmond Hill?
 
Will Richmond Hill Centre ever actually look like that? This looks like another pie in the sky redevelopment proposal like Vaughan Centre which will fail.

Saying that Vaughan Centre will fail is rather premature. Extensive planning work has been done, and transit is being built today (subway + Viva BRT). There are several condo towers under construction, some of which will be finished when the subway goes into service. KPMG is also building their new headquarters there too. Time will tell whether it will succeed, but lets not forget that North York centre also started from nothing.


Compare this to Yonge & Sheppard or Yonge & Bloor which are actually desirable areas and could easily see lots of residential and commercial growth in the future. I know Yonge & Sheppard only has 1 office building under construction right now but it could easily become much larger in the future with lowered commercial taxes and the Sheppard subway extension.

Toronto has struggled for a long time to attract commercial growth, especially in the suburbs. It's not as simple as lowering commercial taxes. If you read this interesting report you will be a lot more informed about the challenges we face.

As for the Sheppard subway, I'm getting tired of debating this. The subway was justified based on unrealistic growth projections in North York and Scarborough Centre, which never materialized. Here are the hard numbers.

Employment in 1986:
- NY: 29,400
- SC: 14,400

Back then planners predicted that by 2011:
- NY: 93,400
- SC: 65,000

^^This was used to justify the sheppard subway

And this is what actually happened:
- NY: 30,200 (very little growth, mostly residential)
- SC: 13,700 (jobs were actually lost)

This is why sheppard is considered a failure, not because the subway is unfinished. We built it and they did not come, therefore the ridership is not there. Until these sky high employment numbers are reached, people need to stop talking about the Sheppard subway. North York having 2 subway lines + highway access did very little to increase jobs, so there's no reason to expect anything to be different by completing this subway today.


It doesn't seem like that development would ever be successful. The development is cut in two by the 407 so there are a lack of pedestrian connections, and the 407 and freight trains on the Richmond Hill line are noisy. There also seems to be a lack of planned schools, shops (other than the big box stores this development is supposed to replace) or other amenities. Somehow I think you would have to cover part of the 407 (insanely expensive and not part of the plan) to make this area at all desirable.

There are actually two separate developments. The red area is Richmond Hill Centre, and the blue area is Langstaff Gateway which is actually in Markham (not RH).
- Each development will be carried out independently by each municipality
- Both will have their own separate subway station
- Both will be self sustaining communities, independent from each other
- The two developments will be linked to each other by new roads over/under the 407, so there's no need to cover part of the 407. It's lot like the financial district and south core, which are both separated by the rail corridor but are connected by streets under the rail corridor.
- You say that office developers want to be near the highway, and then you also say this development will fail because of the highway? The 407 and trains are noisy, but that hasn't stopped people from living next to those things in NY, SC, downtown, and many other areas. Big deal
- Why do you say there's a lack of planned schools, shops, other amenities? It's all in the master plan.

11335545204_d90eb66e62_b.jpg
 
Last edited:

Back
Top