News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

sixrings said:
The government needs to pass laws that help encourage transit. In some places if a company offers free parking (my wife and mine do - two seperate businesses) then if some one decides to take transit then that company has to pay their fares. We can’t just have sticks to discourage driving. We need carrots to encourage transit.

Also the PCs winning a majority tells you exactly what Ontario prioritized. Roads roads and more roads. They can’t announce tolls while the liberals who have been out of power for a while now will not be able to when they first get in. So it’s a looooong way off.
Click to expand...
The government will ruin his reputation if he says "no more roads, more transit" or "convert all highways in GTA into boulevards". If he says "I will widen the DVP", he will gain more population. If I were Doug Ford, I would buy the 407, and convert all highways into boulevards, with safe, protected, bike lanes, and dedicated street car lanes. I would basically build as mush transit, and stop the usage of cars in GTA, as much as possible. Yet the government did not learn from the 401, and American cities, and using the car way, instead of the transit lanes. Also, the trillium(https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/mun...hing-gridlock-ahead-even-with-the-413-9356033) says "The 413 should not be expected to improve congestion in other parts of the region, according to a leading expert in transportation modelling."
 
MichaelGeorge said:
The government will ruin his reputation if he says "no more roads, more transit" or "convert all highways in GTA into boulevards". If he says "I will widen the DVP", he will gain more population. If I were Doug Ford, I would buy the 407, and convert all highways into boulevards, with safe, protected, bike lanes, and dedicated street car lanes. I would basically build as mush transit, and stop the usage of cars in GTA, as much as possible. Yet the government did not learn from the 401, and American cities, and using the car way, instead of the transit lanes. Also, the trillium(https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/mun...hing-gridlock-ahead-even-with-the-413-9356033) says "The 413 should not be expected to improve congestion in other parts of the region, according to a leading expert in transportation modelling."
Click to expand...
The main reason for building 413 is to appease voters in that riding as well as to line the pockets of his developer friends.
 
Bordercollie said:
The main reason for building 413 is to appease voters in that riding as well as to line the pockets of his developer friends.
Click to expand...
You can argue that’s why he specifically wants it but the highway itself has been proposed and the EA was initiated close to 19 years ago at this point. It is also naive to pretend the development wouldn’t happen without the highway- this argument has long since been proven on its respective thread. Look around NW Brampton if you think that’s not true.
 
Last edited:
Bordercollie said:
The main reason for building 413 is to appease voters in that riding as well as to line the pockets of his developer friends.
Click to expand...

2323 said:
You can argue that’s why he specifically wants it but the highway itself has been proposed and the EA was initiated close to 19 years ago at this point. It is also naive to pretend the development wouldn’t happen without the highway- this argument has long since been proven on its respective thread. Look around NW Brampton if you think that’s not true.
Click to expand...

I've said this before - the landowners in the area around the 413 dislike the highway if anything. It decreases the amount of buildable land in the area and has held up development of the area for almost 15 years now as MTO froze the lands in the corridor from development until they finalized it's design. The highway has actually cost developers untold sums waiting out its design process.
 
Bordercollie said:
The main reason for building 413 is to appease voters in that riding as well as to line the pockets of his developer friends.
Click to expand...
I used to think this was a country built around laws, until seeing developers but BILLIONS of dollars of "useless" land near the science centre as well as the 413 (useless because it's not zoned for housing/commercial) mere weeks before Doug made announcements, and nobody will ever go to jail for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
turbanplanner said:
I used to think this was a country built around laws, until seeing developers but BILLIONS of dollars of "useless" land near the science centre as well as the 413 (useless because it's not zoned for housing/commercial) mere weeks before Doug made announcements, and nobody will ever go to jail for this.
Click to expand...
The science center backs a ravine which is part of a vast park Network. Besides that land is part of a flood plane and you can't develop there.

Go look up hurricane Hazel.
 
Bordercollie said:
The science center backs a ravine which is part of a vast park Network. Besides that land is part of a flood plane and you can't develop there.

Go look up hurricane Hazel.
Click to expand...
There is none of the Science Centre buildings that are in the flood plain (of course). Including the very large buildings in the valley. At least this is what Hazel told me :) .

By getting rid of the science centre, it allows them to develop where the existing main building is at the bottom of the hill (not to mention the main entrance and parking lots).

I've sketched the approximate outline of the Science Centre building and parking lots of the flood mapping.

1741714591912.png
 
turbanplanner said:
I meant the land north of eglinton

https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1dnuw2o/ford_is_really_outdoing_himself
Click to expand...
That development has been in the works for decades. It's all the former IBM office park. What's changed with the extent of developable land? The footprint look similar (at a glance).

I don't see the logic in that Reddit thread linking it to the value of the developers land, along the 413. Heck, in theory by potentially opening up the Science Centre land for development, that increases supply, and would reduce price. (in theory ...)
 
nfitz said:
That development has been in the works for decades. It's all the former IBM office park. What's changed with the extent of developable land? The footprint look similar (at a glance).

I don't see the logic in that Reddit thread linking it to the value of the developers land, along the 413. Heck, in theory by potentially opening up the Science Centre land for development, that increases supply, and would reduce price. (in theory ...)
Click to expand...
Well yeah- you’re assuming a UT-like good faith dialogue.

Don’t overthink the takes on these subreddits about Ford and what blunders they string together into a ‘damning’ narrative. It’s a great place for getting the latest scoops, but the conversation is… well, not really a conversation.

It’s frustrating because sometimes I want to see discussion, I go to the comments, and it’s just not there.

…It’d be nice if folks could simply dislike Ford without hallucinating the reasons. It’s not exactly hard (thread title)— unless politics is just a game of colours for many? (Don’t answer that)
 
nfitz said:
That development has been in the works for decades. It's all the former IBM office park. What's changed with the extent of developable land? The footprint look similar (at a glance).

I don't see the logic in that Reddit thread linking it to the value of the developers land, along the 413. Heck, in theory by potentially opening up the Science Centre land for development, that increases supply, and would reduce price. (in theory ...)
Click to expand...
The first proposal for Celestica was filed in 2014 and a settlement was approved by Council in June 2016. Yes, I'm nit picking, but it hasn't been "decades".
 
nfitz said:
There is none of the Science Centre buildings that are in the flood plain (of course). Including the very large buildings in the valley. At least this is what Hazel told me :) .
Click to expand...

Correct.

nfitz said:
By getting rid of the science centre, it allows them to develop where the existing main building is at the bottom of the hill (not to mention the main entrance and parking lots).
Click to expand...

Not correct.

1) The province does not own the land. The land is leased from the City of Toronto, and the TRCA, the lease is explicit in the permitted uses, which does not allow for residential.

2) While outside the floodlain, portions of the site are regulated by the control limit under regulation, which is 10M from STOS (Stable Top of Slope). The lower site would not be permitted today, as built.

Additionally, the site is protected under the Natural Feature/Ravine by-law:

1741962166219.png


But yes, the lands up top could certainly be positioned for development if that was the goal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top