TTC Eyes Towers at Stations

[scarberiankhatru]

In the longer term, Sheppard's bus terminal would be a prime redevelopment site. Finch, too, as it could get away with far smaller terminal areas.

Kennedy has tons of room for a few towers, particularly if a parking garage was built. However, only Tridel could be successful there, so it kind of depends on them.

Bessarion should have been built with towers on top in mind from day one.

The city owns them, not the TTC (not that it matters too much) but the green P lots at Yonge & York Mills/Wilson are begging to go. The only problem is that unless they are replaced by office buildings, the luxury condos that will invariably get built instead will generate far fewer transit trips than the parking lots do. People will just park at Finch or Yorkdale instead, I guess.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

What's the status of the old Eglinton bus terminal? Hasn't that been on the agenda for redevlopment for ages? And hey, what about Vic Park? They were raring to go in early 2006.

 

[RedRocket191]

What's the status of the old Eglinton bus terminal? Hasn't that been on the agenda for redevlopment for ages? And hey, what about Vic Park? They were raring to go in early 2006.

As of about October-November of 2007, city officials were developing concept plans for the area. As far as I know there isn't a concrete proposal.

 

[PaulG]

I always found it strange that the bloor-danforth line doesn't have towers all along the line around every station. Couldn't the government expropriate all land within a 200 metre radius of a subway station, so all buildings shorter than 20 stories can be replaced with 30 storey buildings?

 

[Observer Walt]

PaulG, you sound like a refugee from the 1960s, when blockbusting was very much in style. Although I don't think the city expropriated anything, in those days. Seriously, your suggestion is contrary to any currently accepted planning principles. These days we emphasize maintaining the stability of neighbourhoods (at least in theory). Ripping apart established neighbourhoods is a non-starter.

Most of the B-D subway runs through stable residential neighbourhoods, dominated by detached and semi-detached houses. There is probably room to intensify directly along the main streets (Bloor and Danforth), up to perhaps five or six storeys, but on the side streets most people would say, we like it as it is, thanks.

 

[adma]

I always found it strange that the bloor-danforth line doesn't have towers all along the line around every station. Couldn't the government expropriate all land within a 200 metre radius of a subway station, so all buildings shorter than 20 stories can be replaced with 30 storey buildings?

You mean, like this thing right next door to the St. George entrance?

The historical community would have you dissolved in acid for that notion...

 

[p5connex]

^^That thought made me laugh!

 

[PaulG]

Tear it down and put up a 40 storey condo

I realize people don't want to move from their homes, or they have a sentimental attachment to their 'neighbourhoods' and old buildings, but it's causing some problems.

There are millions of people, and growing, in and around Toronto, and only a minority percentage of people use public transit. This would change if more people lived in towers next to subway stations.

Toronto is really just a big subdivision, if more efficiently placed towers aren't built in Toronto, then the 'subdivision of Toronto' will just keep spreading causing more urban sprawl. Seems the subdivision of Toronto has even grown beyond the borders of it's neighbouring subdivision 'cities'.

and if the 'supply and demand' is truly a factor in oil prices (it might be), shouldn't the rest of Canada force a better transit system, and better construction plan on Toronto, removing millions of gas buyers from the market, lowering prices?

It seems the real reason Torontonians don't use transit as much as should be, and don't have better transit and more efficiently placed high density towers is because of the 'not in my back yard' people in Toronto. There also could be other factors like 'big oil' and government gas tax collection, n.i.m.b.y. in the 'neighbourhood' with money and political connections. But seems like Toronto voters have a lot of political power, so if Torontonians really wanted more transit rather than their cars, they'd have it by now.

'urban' people can point at the oils sands as a big environmental problem, but the 'oil sand people' can point right back at inefficient massive sprawling subdivision cities filled with car drivers, and people who live in those cities that actually fight against the change to efficiency.

Canada is a vast country, there are plenty of places in Canada to live in a subdivision, small town and 'neighbourhood', but there's very few places to build up a city.

 

[urbanfan89]

Tear it down and put up a 40 storey condo

I realize people don't want to move from their homes, or they have a sentimental attachment to their 'neighbourhoods' and old buildings, but it's causing some problems.

That's what the politicians of Detroit said when they were planning massive freeway networks. Look at it now.

There are millions of people, and growing, in and around Toronto, and only a minority percentage of people use public transit. This would change if more people lived in towers next to subway stations.

Perhaps making local bus service more reliable and dependable will go a longer way to boosting transit usage without so much expropriation.

Toronto is really just a big subdivision, if more efficiently placed towers aren't built in Toronto, then the 'subdivision of Toronto' will just keep spreading causing more urban sprawl. Seems the subdivision of Toronto has even grown beyond the borders of it's neighbouring subdivision 'cities'.

The solution is fairly simple, and is being persued by the province: encourage more Nork York Centres and Mississaugas in places like Markham, Brampton, Etobicoke, Pickering, Vaughan, etc. Then build transit to make it fast to get there.

and if the 'supply and demand' is truly a factor in oil prices (it might be), shouldn't the rest of Canada force a better transit system, and better construction plan on Toronto, removing millions of gas buyers from the market, lowering prices?

Don't forget that the market of fuel is global. All of Canada can stop driving on a daily basis, but when a thousand new cars enter Beijing's roads every day, this is quickly negated. So prices at the pump will go up regardless of any effort to remove drivers.

It seems the real reason Torontonians don't use transit as much as should be, and don't have better transit and more efficiently placed high density towers is because of the 'not in my back yard' people in Toronto.

You haven't seen NIMBYism until you see the shrill opposition to even improving bus service in suburban LA, Detroit, Florida, etc.

There also could be other factors like 'big oil' and government gas tax collection, n.i.m.b.y. in the 'neighbourhood' with money and political connections. But seems like Toronto voters have a lot of political power, so if Torontonians really wanted more transit rather than their cars, they'd have it by now.

Transit usage in the 416 and 905 is higher than any city in the US, bar NYC. It's much higher than in Boston or Chicago or San Francisco. It isn't as high as in Europe, but it shows that transit isn't seen as welfare for the poor. You can blame Mike Harris and the current people in Ottawa for why the TTC isn't as good as it should be.

'urban' people can point at the oils sands as a big environmental problem, but the 'oil sand people' can point right back at inefficient massive sprawling subdivision cities filled with car drivers, and people who live in those cities that actually fight against the change to efficiency.

Soccer moms with big hulking SUVs is one thing, but it's been proven that if you simply make the bus schedule a bit more user friendly, you see double digit growth rates in ridership.

Canada is a vast country, there are plenty of places in Canada to live in a subdivision, small town and 'neighbourhood', but there's very few places to build up a city.

I hope by 2030 we have an arrangement where people in metropolitan areas live in smaller houses and maybe apartments, while also owning weekend chalets in the Muskoka or somewhere. This will go a long way to breaking the auto dependency.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It seems the real reason Torontonians don't use transit as much as should be, and don't have better transit and more efficiently placed high density towers is because of the 'not in my back yard' people in Toronto.

Nope. We don't use transit more because there's no more transit available to use. Give us commuter rail, subway lines, and buses more than every half hour and we'll use transit in world class numbers.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps making local bus service more reliable and dependable will go a longer way to boosting transit usage without so much expropriation.

You don't expropriate to increase density around subway stations. You simply let it be clearly lone that you will accept zoning applications to do so. Developers will then slowly obtain the property to put together a project. No one needs to sell, unless they get a good deal.

The lack of density along Danforth is really shameful at this point. Why there is redevelopment on a large scale on Shepherd, but not on Danforth is a shame, particularily when it is so much closer to downtown.

 

[adma]

Tear it down and put up a 40 storey condo

I realize people don't want to move from their homes, or they have a sentimental attachment to their 'neighbourhoods' and old buildings, but it's causing some problems.

Er, PaulG. if you just see something like the York Club/Gooderham House as an object of sentimental attachment by NIMBYs, you're truly the most historically, urbanistically, etc insensitive piece of whatever imaginable. Not just in your willingness to tear such stuff down, but in your utter, galling, ignorant obliviousness to what you're dealing with.

As much of an albatross as it can sometimes be, I'll take that brand of "sentimental attachment" over your brand of sociopathic detachment anyday; as would any halfway sensitive urbanist in this town, even those who support the cause of intensification...

 

[adma]

The lack of density along Danforth is really shameful at this point. Why there is redevelopment on a large scale on Shepherd, but not on Danforth is a shame, particularily when it is so much closer to downtown.

Then again, it might have something to do with the fundamentally parvenu nature of said "redevelopment on a large scale"; and the Danforth hasn't that arbitrary suburban-parvenu quality. (If you think Main Square is bad, imagine a New York Towers in the middle of the Danforth...)

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The bungalows around Sheppard's towers even out the density to the point that it's a wash compared to Danforth, especially since transit ridership is higher along the Danforth, being closer to downtown. Of course, many dozens of towers have yet to be built along Sheppard, so the scales should eventually tip in its favour.

 

[wyliepoon]

Paul's idea of intensification has been applied to some degree in transit building projects around the world. For example, the Curitiba, Brazil BRT system was accompanied by high-density zoning of properties along the route...

Chinese cities have been following that idea for years. Every city in China wants a subway system, and they want Hong Kong-style density. What better way to raze an inner-city neighbourhood in China to build skyscrapers than to do it in the name of subway building? I've seen whole blocks of traditional housing in Shanghai destroyed just for the construction of a subway line.