Lenser said:
[...] if we don't get our transportation infrastructure act together, we'll actually be stunting our possibilities for growth.
Click to expand...

This is such an important point. I get that we want density, it is a good want, but not if we aren't planning responsibly for it. The private sector seems to be driving the density side of the equation just fine but the planning part requires long term vision, investment and 'city building', all things that have been in short order around here for some time.
 
Lenser said:
Rural, even! It is to laugh. Toronto - such a zero town.
Click to expand...
Its not a zero town, but come on, there are many rural, derelict (whatever you want call it) looking pockets in this town
...and yes coming west from the Portlands and on to the Queens Quay, its pretty sketchy
if not for the skyline in the horizon you might as well be in Erie Pennsylvania
 
Automation Gallery said:
Its not a zero town, but come on, there are many rural, derelict (whatever you want call it) looking pockets in this town
...and yes coming west from the Portlands and on to the Queens Quay, its pretty sketchy
if not for the skyline in the horizon you might as well be in Erie Pennsylvania
Click to expand...

Many city have industrial areas in transition, it doesn't make any of that "rural" by a long shot, much less a gross indication as to whether a city is dense or not (think Docklands in London, or the site that is now La Defense in Paris). Big deal.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Perhaps by the same token you should refrain from throwing words like "sparsely populated" around as well - because you clearly have no idea what that really is either.

AoD
Click to expand...

I do. I have been to North York or Scarborough after all.
In all seriousness, what I was against was this fear mongering "this is too dense!" protest as if a couple of 60-80s towers will immediately make an area unlivable. I am sure those people must have grown up in the suburbs where there are no buildings taller than 4 stories within walking distance and watching a movie involves a car ride. Like you said, density doesn't have to come from highrises in the case of Paris/Barcelona/even Tokyo, but Toronto is NOT dense, even downtown. True that very high density decreases quality of life, but Toronto is not remotely close to that tipping point, but rather at the point where higher density will increase quality of life. I don't know exactly how many residents downtown has today, but I can assure you life will be a lot more interesting/better if the number doubles/triples - this is not something people who spend their entire life in suburban North America (which is atypical by world standard) can fully understand.
 
grey said:
We get it. You've been to Asia. Congrats.
Click to expand...

20+ years, plus about 8 times in Europe, 3 times in South America, once in Africa. And I am used to cities with 5-15 subway lines - that's a benefit of density. Lyon, France for example has half a million people, and 4 subway lines. Anger, France has 150k people, but it has a LRT - imagine Barrie, Ontario to have an LRT?

"Super density" is as far from anywhere in Toronto as the earth from the Sun. We don't have to worry about that possibility in the next 50 years. And that was my point.
 
ksun said:
I do. I have been to North York or Scarborough after all.
In all seriousness, what I was against was this fear mongering "this is too dense!" protest as if a couple of 60-80s towers will immediately make an area unlivable. I am sure those people must have grown up in the suburbs where there are no buildings taller than 4 stories within walking distance and watching a movie involves a car ride. Like you said, density doesn't have to come from highrises in the case of Paris/Barcelona/even Tokyo, but Toronto is NOT dense, even downtown. True that very high density decreases quality of life, but Toronto is not remotely close to that tipping point, but rather at the point where higher density will increase quality of life. I don't know exactly how many residents downtown has today, but I can assure you life will be a lot more interesting/better if the number doubles/triples - this is not something people who spend their entire life in suburban North America (which is atypical by world standard) can fully understand.
Click to expand...

The point you seem to be choosing to ignore, however, is that no one suggested the city is super dense. I merely stated that this represented a massive overdevelopment of this site, which is does. Anyone with eyes can see that building 4 towers of this height on such a small parcel of land is ridiculous and will never pass city planning (who, thank god, do not include the likes of you). Of course, twisting intentions and putting words in other's mouths is the only way you can reinforce your bizarre and unrealistic worldviews so I'm not surprised you'd try and make the users of this forum (most of whom only salivate a little less than you at gentrified neighbourhoods and supertall buildings) into rural pearl clutchers afraid of anything taller than a 4 storey building...
 
Automation Gallery said:
Its not a zero town, but come on, there are many rural, derelict (whatever you want call it) looking pockets in this town
...and yes coming west from the Portlands and on to the Queens Quay, its pretty sketchy
if not for the skyline in the horizon you might as well be in Erie Pennsylvania
Click to expand...

How does that make it rural?
 
ksun said:
"Super density" is as far from anywhere in Toronto as the earth from the Sun. We don't have to worry about that possibility in the next 50 years. And that was my point.
Click to expand...

Not true. Forget the whole 'super density' label. It's all relative anyway. What is super dense for here isn't for Asia, obviously. Who cares. Bottom line, it isn't smart to keep loading on density that hasn't been planned for or accommodated for. Density that is too high a burden on the existing infrastructure is going to be a problem that we absolutely will have to worry about. I'm not suggesting this is or isn't the case in this project - I don't know - only that it is a responsible question to ask... and not one to ignore because of comparisons to Asia.

ksun said:
Lyon, France for example has half a million people, and 4 subway lines. Anger, France has 150k people, but it has a LRT - imagine Barrie, Ontario to have an LRT?
Click to expand...

Europe has a completely different history than that of North America. It has generations and hundreds of years of urban development that predate the car. It also has a far greater population in its land area. Cities like Lyons and Angers are already connected into much larger inter-regional/city transit networks. In the European context it is in many ways easier and more pragmatic to add or expand transit than it is roads and more vehicles. Lyons' metropolitan area is greater than 2 million by the way.
 
salsa said:
Ksun has some interesting ideas as to what constitutes high density.
Click to expand...

If you get to the top of the Sears Tower or John Hancock Tower, you'll see that Chicago - the city that too many Torontonians aspire to - is flat. Not just topographically, but also structurally. Outside of the Downtown (including the South Loop and Near North Side), and block from the Lake Michigan shoreline, the city's skyline is flat. The rest of Chicago is made up of two-three story houses, duplexes and low-rise apartments.

Toronto, on the other hand, and even several suburban municipalities, are punctured by highrise rental and condo towers. Rural? Ha. Erie? Ha. We do better than just about any other city in Canada or the United States.
 
ksun, I think peoples' frustration with the attitude you present here is that you're quick to accuse others of fear and civic small-mindedness at the mere suggestion of excess density and the city's ability to absorb it (extremely valid concerns to even casual observers of urban planning and, you know, recent history). You keep making fanciful comparisons with cities that are much older, more populated, wealthier, or any combination of these factors, as though we're meant to be impressed. This adds no value to a nuanced discussion about Toronto development in relative terms. You demonstrate weak knowledge and inaccurate assumptions regarding the city's planning practices, history and plans for the future, which are based on actual data and growth projections.

You're preaching to the choir; by virtue of participating in this forum, it's pretty much a given that virtually all of us are pro-density in the sense that we agree the city must grow denser. Maybe read a few articles in Spacing Magazine or something, then join the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Its not a zero town, but come on, there are many rural, derelict (whatever you want call it) looking pockets in this town
...and yes coming west from the Portlands and on to the Queens Quay, its pretty sketchy
if not for the skyline in the horizon you might as well be in Erie Pennsylvania
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but what in the hot hell are you talking about? The East Bayfront and Portlands are slated for DOZENS of projects including several towers. On an accelerated schedule, no less.

You know this, AG. You've read the threads about them, even made bad replies there, too.

You know this...

What are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top