News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I actually disagree with you here. Density is always improved upon as land values dictate the need for it. There are countless examples going back hundreds and (probably thousands) of years of sparce housing on the fringes of cities being developed once it is engulfed by a city's growth and usually even that first wave is razed at some point in favour of even more density. It'll take a long time before places like Brampton reach this point just because of its distance from a significantly dense area, but I think history would suggest that plots of land containing a single house within proximity of an urban core won't exist like that forever.

Case-in-point, the oldest existing house in London England dates to 1535. Every other house in the entire City older than that has been replaced over the last 475 years.
 
As someone who is in the business in perpetuating sprawl, all I can say is that I can't wait until we wake up from this nightmare and realize that Urban Compact form is the only way to go. The American/Canadian dream won't be viable for much longer in most large urban centres.

In the meantime, it's too bad we can't force people out of their cars because I would so be all over that if it meant for the greater good of our cities.

Force people out of cars? How about improving the god awful transit service in the burbs first, take public transit from Richmond Hill to downtown Toronto, it takes 2 hours. The car is still by far the fastest way to travel outside of the downtown core. for a lot of people time is money. Rail service is so vastly under developed in North America its sickening, No wonder Pearson airport can get away with those parking prices, there is no direct public transit link to the airport, hopefully if Smitherman gets elected he can go a head with his plans for a direct air rail link which is much needed in this city.
 
Rail service is so vastly under developed in North America its sickening, No wonder Pearson airport can get away with those parking prices, there is no direct public transit link to the airport, hopefully if Smitherman gets elected he can go a head with his plans for a direct air rail link which is much needed in this city.

Um....I'm not sure Smitherman deserves the credit for this one. That project has been ongoing for years.
 
Um....I'm not sure Smitherman deserves the credit for this one. That project has been ongoing for years.

Indeed. It's been ongoing for so long that Cretien probaly gets the credit for this one. Martin gets a bit for not having it killed and providing the initial chunk of money (2002 or 2003 for the funding right?). McGuinty gets a bit too for picking up the pieces and giving it a second go-round when the private firm the feds chose stumbled and eventually backed out.
 
Last edited:
I actually disagree with you here. Density is always improved upon as land values dictate the need for it. There are countless examples going back hundreds and (probably thousands) of years of sparce housing on the fringes of cities being developed once it is engulfed by a city's growth and usually even that first wave is razed at some point in favour of even more density. It'll take a long time before places like Brampton reach this point just because of its distance from a significantly dense area, but I think history would suggest that plots of land containing a single house within proximity of an urban core won't exist like that forever.
But how many people are we expecting the GTA to have? If we wanted to raze the suburbs and replace it with, say, 4 storey apartments with side street spacing, you'd need the population of the GTA to quadruple at least.

Sure, the odd house, or even (hopefully) subdivision, may get torn down and replaced with mid rise, but nothing substantial. We'll need to rely on infill development and careful density planning to make sure that suburban areas are "fenced in" and integrated into the dense urban environment around them. You'll get some redevelopment, but even asking half the suburbs to be redeveloped is crazy for this city.
The GTA will probably grow a lot in just the coming decades, I'd hazard to guess surpassing 10 million people in a few, and maybe it'll hit 20 million some day (I doubt it,) but we shouldn't focus on just eradicating the suburbs. Some people like it there, and if you built density around suburban pockets, you get the best of both worlds for them: quiet neighborhoods and spacious houses, with close proximity to transit and local businesses reliant on higher density.
 
In Ancient Greece, when a city reached a certain size it would gather a group of citizen and send them out to start a new colony. This meant that Greek cities were limited in size, and rather than expanding endlessly they would sprout new cities further up the coast.

In ancient Greece, the country Greece did not exist. The Cities in what is now Greece were not cities in the modern sense they were Principalities restricted to their sites by unfavourable topography that limited agriculture, the backbone of their existence. As their population exceeded their ability to feed it new City States/Colonies were the only solution. The new communities were not adjacent to the parent community because of geographical restraints not because of superior planning by City fathers. Communication between these cities was solely by sea as no roads existed let alone tram lines.
 
It's neither communism or nazism. It's how ALL communites grew before the automobile and linear transit lines allowed people to live further from the agora/piazza/market-square than they could walk.

The pre-auto communities you describe grew organically. They weren't preplanned. People formed those communities out of choice.

It is an alternative to the Megacity option. It assumes that in the future people will not need to meet in person to conduct business or for entertainment as often as they do now. Once human interaction over the internet becomes universal there will be no need for big megacities.

There are a lot of reason that there are big cities than simply human interaction. There is just little benefit from forcing people to live in small towns, even if it was possible. Certainly it won't increase density and save any farmland.
 
semi-rural state as working from home becomes more popular

Working from home does sound good, but wouldent it remove the case for mass transit, thus increasing suburbia and car culture. Not to mention the fact that every business cannot operate will all remote workers, or the fact that instead of using the office equipment, workers are on the hook for second computers, phone lines, blackberries etc. There are too many problems with mass telework.
 
You'll never eliminate commuting. Remote offices are a distinct possibility, but the office will not disappear. People like having a purpose, a place to get up in the morning and go to. Look at how many people struggle with retirement. If everyone does start working from home, expect depression rates to skyrocket.

The GTA will probably grow a lot in just the coming decades, I'd hazard to guess surpassing 10 million people in a few, and maybe it'll hit 20 million some day (I doubt it,) but we shouldn't focus on just eradicating the suburbs. Some people like it there, and if you built density around suburban pockets, you get the best of both worlds for them: quiet neighborhoods and spacious houses, with close proximity to transit and local businesses reliant on higher density.
In the medium term population growth is going to drop off pretty dramatically. The UN projects North America's peak population to be somewhere above 500 million, which would be about 55-60 million for Canada. Probably around 21-22 million in Ontario. (10m in AB, 8M in BC, 12M in QC) The majority of those will settle in GTA; putting its population at 12M.

The question is, where do we put 6 million more people? Toronto allows for 1M more, 3m more in current 905 without much trouble. The shortfall is not actually as bad as it sounds. 2 million more people - but if toronto can fit an extra 1m in while preserving almost all "neighbourhoods" couldn't the 905 take in a similar proportion? It will be interesting.

One other thing I was thinking with while toying with those numbers: in this timeframe both Calgary and Vancouver will be around 4 million people. Calgary plans to sprawl while Vancouver has already exhausted its developable land; even today its sprawl is actually redevelopment of older, estate type subdivisions and the farmland protection has gotten even stricter in the last decade or so. Again, the approaches are pretty different. We'll see which one works out better.
 
In the medium term population growth is going to drop off pretty dramatically. The UN projects North America's peak population to be somewhere above 500 million, which would be about 55-60 million for Canada. Probably around 21-22 million in Ontario. (10m in AB, 8M in BC, 12M in QC) The majority of those will settle in GTA; putting its population at 12M.

The question is, where do we put 6 million more people? Toronto allows for 1M more, 3m more in current 905 without much trouble. The shortfall is not actually as bad as it sounds. 2 million more people - but if toronto can fit an extra 1m in while preserving almost all "neighbourhoods" couldn't the 905 take in a similar proportion? It will be interesting.
I doubt that canada would peak at 60 million, but even so, that's enough for Toronto to have 10 million.

I don't think we should focus on preserving all neighborhoods. A couple communities that are extremely spread out and have little historical/architectural significance could be cleared for new mid-rise communities, while there's tonnes of opportunity for infill development and maybe clipping off a street or two of subdivisions for medium-density buildings. Toronto could easily hold another 1 million people without causing serious disturbance to established communities (including those in the suburbs,) and the GTA as a whole could take much more, as you can do more to subdivisions without it being an architectural tragedy. While there's a couple notable suburban neighborhoods in Toronto, there aren't as many in the outer suburbs and so you could put more mid-rise development in it. Things like office parks and big box stores offer tonnes of opportunity for medium density as well.

The important thing is stopping suburban sprawl right now, so we can actually fuel all our growth upwards. That should be a no-brainer, but the city, region, and province obviously don't have a strong idea of what's the right course of action.
 
I don't think we should focus on preserving all neighborhoods. A couple communities that are extremely spread out and have little historical/architectural significance could be cleared for new mid-rise communities, while there's tonnes of opportunity for infill development and maybe clipping off a street or two of subdivisions for medium-density buildings.

I think that even if some neighbourhoods lack density or architectural significance, they should not just be cleared. They should be gradually redeveloped like everything else. That way the community can continue to function as the redevelopment takes place.
Replacing a few houses with highrises doesn't do much harm to the community, but razing the entire area and starting from scratch certainly does.
 
I think that even if some neighbourhoods lack density or architectural significance, they should not just be cleared. They should be gradually redeveloped like everything else. That way the community can continue to function as the redevelopment takes place.
Replacing a few houses with highrises doesn't do much harm to the community, but razing the entire area and starting from scratch certainly does.
I'm saying long term. There are some low rise neighborhoods that could just be completely turned into a mid rise ones, while others would need to keep a basic suburban form but have, say, a mid rise main street or mid rise border along an arterial.
 
I'm saying long term. There are some low rise neighborhoods that could just be completely turned into a mid rise ones,

What better place to start than the Bridle Path? Large lots mean fewer owners to deal with and I'm sure they will see the wisdom of your project. They probably hardly use those tennis courts and swimming pools anyway.
 
What better place to start than the Bridle Path? Large lots mean fewer owners to deal with and I'm sure they will see the wisdom of your project. They probably hardly use those tennis courts and swimming pools anyway.

For Bridle Path all you have to do is sneak a rezoning through. The people that own those houses aren't really attached to the hood or Toronto in general and would easily let themselves be bought out by developers.

Alternatively, you could expropriate one, build some social housing, and then when property values drop scoop up the rest for pennies on the dollar.
 
I think the "extremely spread out/little architectural significance" alibi for redevelopment is already in effect along in the North York Centre environs--Yonge, Sheppard, Finch etc. And even there, stuff like the Leona Drive Project have given people reason to "engage" to some of the doomed and seemingly unimportant existing building stock...
 

Back
Top