[P23]

I fail to see how banning/reducing development would help anything. It would likely create two new problems: a housing shortage (already an issue) and an even greater strain on the transit system as the new residents from the suburbs commute downtown to work. Downtown residents at least usually have the option of biking or walking.

 

[Mongo]

I will repeat what others are saying. Stopping development downtown merely shifts the inevitable growth to the suburbs, putting even more strain on the already over-strained subway routes.

If Council truly wants to relieve congestion, the Downtown Relief Line should be started ASAP, and people should continue to be able to move downtown (meaning more downtown development).

The change in policy that Keesmat proposes would make congestion worse, not better.

 

[Edward Skira]

I will repeat what others are saying. Stopping development downtown merely shifts the inevitable growth to the suburbs, putting even more strain on the already over-strained subway routes.

If Council truly wants to relieve congestion, the Downtown Relief Line should be started ASAP, and people should continue to be able to move downtown (meaning more downtown development).

The change in policy that Keesmat proposes would make congestion worse, not better.

This is about more than the Yonge subway being overcrowded. This is about servicing all these people moving into these neighbourhoods. Sewage, garbage disposal, schools, hospitals, daycare, electricity, narrow sidewalks etc. You can put 5,000 or 50,000 additional people at Yonge and College but how do you provide services for them? How do they actually leave their buildings considering how narrow our downtown sidewalks and streets are. This is definitely the time to be discussing these issues before they blow up on us.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Shifting growth to the suburbs is not a bad thing either, in fact it's what we want. There are many growth centres that could easily handle intensification, and avenues that have long stretches ripe for development.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's not even shifting growth to the suburbs - it is looking at whether it makes sense to insulate neighbourhoods from a higher level of intensification than is currently practiced at all costs while cramming development into elsewhere. That's not balanced.

Let's ask ourselves the question - just where can we currently add density in any significant way right now in the city? The core, brownfields, narrow avenues. That's it. Does it make sense?

AoD

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

The change in policy that Keesmat proposes would make congestion worse, not better.

I don't think she said anything about halting development downtown. Just about the level of it on Yonge. In fact, I don't think she even said she wants to stop building on Yonge. Are some of us overreacting here?

 

[Edward Skira]

We can certainly put quite a few here:

The Avenues can also hold a significant number of people.

 

[Lenser]

Isn't that supposed to be a lot of parkland, along with existing industrial elements? I'd hate to see a forest of towers here, personally. But lots of green space? I'm in.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We can certainly put quite a few here:
The Avenues can also hold a significant number of people.

Sure we can put a few in Portlands (but the projected pop is less than 100K - everything south of the Shipping Channel would still be zoned industrial) - but the question is why should we focus development in areas that are often the most difficult to service - without existing transit capacity at that - while having subway lines that are literally servicing low-density areas. Because they are "stable"? Just because certain councillors don't want to take the heat? It's time to challenge some of the orthodoxy that's the last OP.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

We don't need to destroy low-rise neighbourhoods to achieve better balance. I don't know what these "narrow avenues" you refer to are, but we have plenty of development potential in the core, adjacent to the core, and along arterials and transit corridors throughout this city, all places where the city says it wants to see intensification but frustrates it more often than not. Your solution, which notwithstanding your past objections to my characterization of it as bulldozing low-rise (not necessarily low density) neighbourhoods amounts to just that, would destroy the core in a misguided effort to save it. We tried this urban renewal approach in the 1960s and 1970s and it was disastrous.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We don't need to destroy low-rise neighbourhoods to achieve better balance. I don't know what these "narrow avenues" you refer to are, but we have plenty of development potential in the core, adjacent to the core, and along arterials and transit corridors throughout this city, all places where the city says it wants to see intensification but frustrates it more often than not. Your solution, which notwithstanding your past objections to my characterization of it as bulldozing low-rise (not necessarily low density) neighbourhoods amounts to just that, would destroy the core in a misguided effort to save it. We tried this urban renewal approach in the 1960s and 1970s and it was disastrous.

Not to say that wholesale demolition without care is ideal or desirable - but keep in mind the current round of densification is living off the urban renewal approach of the 60s and 70s - those parking lots we've filled didn't come from nowhere.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

So we should create more surface parking lots in Cabbagetown now, with a view to future development? Not sure what your point is there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So we should create more surface parking lots in Cabbagetown now, with a view to future development? Not sure what your point is there.

Cabbagetown level of static preservation should be the exception, not the norm - and have to stand on its own merit. Can we sincerely believe that all the neighbourhoods proximate to the core demands/deserve that level of protection? When even adding a 4s low-rise raises a planning stink?

Let's pull out some numbers - just what percentage of growth has been accommodate by mid-rise developments in designated avenues in the city?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-69376.pdf

It's pretty safe to say that's not the predominant mode of intensification.

AoD

 

[67Cup]

I do not pretend to be an expert on infrastructure matters but observation of many cities leads me to believe that densification both makes a more developed infrastructure necessary and also possible. Specifically, mass transit requires density to exist. But density also clearly lays the financial foundation for such investments.

I don' t know a thing about the capacity and condition of the sewer system but even a visitor to Toronto like myself can see that another north south transit flow, whether subway or rail, is needed, stat! Density increases the tax base necessary for long term viability but it seems to me that levies on new developments should go to infrastructure development. That raises costs so there is doubtless a balancing point. But much as I like public art, in the present situation, I would rather see Sec 37 funds or equivalent go to a new subway.

More expert posters can let me know why I am wrong about this!

 

[Skeezix]

Cabbagetown level of static preservation should be the exception, not the norm - and have to stand on its own merit. Can we sincerely believe that all the neighbourhoods proximate to the core demands/deserve that level of protection? When even adding a 4s low-rise raises a planning stink?

Let's pull out some numbers - just what percentage of growth has been accommodate by mid-rise developments in designated avenues in the city?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-69376.pdf

It's pretty safe to say that's not the predominant mode of intensification.

AoD

We might not necessarily disagree here. We both think the city needs to allow more midrise (or even high-rise) development on the Avenues (even beyond the Avenues, since the designation of some arterials as Avenues, and others not, often has more to do with politics than planning), even where the adjacent neighbourhood is unhappy.

It's when you talk about some neighbourhoods deserving protection, others not, that you completely lose me.