OneCity
Senior Member
Certainly not as close as one would have assumed given all the PR for the candidate with 9 votes and nothing for the guy with 27. Pretty unanimous
Hart 27
Sokanacki 9
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Certainly not as close as one would have assumed given all the PR for the candidate with 9 votes and nothing for the guy with 27. Pretty unanimous
Hart 27
Sokanacki 9
adma
Superstar
But still--keep in mind my link.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/lif...ough-neighbourhood-to-action/article26313613/
Which, to repeat, I offered in a *pro*-suburb spirit.
And in fact, may I say this: if you want to offer someplace like Scarborough in a manner that's palatable to "urbanites" as well as flattering to "its own", it's by emphasizing it as a place with a story, and a history. Whether it be First Nations, or c19 rural settlement, or c20 suburban development, or even c21 densification/diversification/naturalization etc.
That is, I'm offering a way to bridge the divide, and get in touch with a genius loci that goes beyond subways-subways-subways.
But one thing I find with your sort of Scarborough/suburbia-defender is that that sort of perspective is *totally lost* on you. You wouldn't be able to seek and present such pieces or links; they fly completely over your head. It's up to someone like *me* to seek, and find, and even have the inherent curiosity about such links. *You can't*. And when I present them, they *still* fly over your head.
Why? Why are you so indifferent? Or is this an urban-libertarian "history is bunk; it's all about the people" thing?
Why is the kind of suburban narrative you're defending so...*dismal*? Like, a place without a story, *any* story whatsoever, except that of the running day-to-day present? It even sounds like the suburban place where you live is, in your words, "beautiful"...but without a story. It's like it's "beautiful" in completely self-serving terms.
Because if you're going to be speaking up for Doug Ford as "the voice of Scarborough", while totally disregarding the actual sensual fact of Scarborough as a place with a history and a place with stories, may I ask you...
How did you get to be so tasteless?
How did you get to be such a philistine?
And what are you doing in Urban Toronto in the first place?
OneCity
Senior Member
But still--keep in mind my link.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/lif...ough-neighbourhood-to-action/article26313613/
Which, to repeat, I offered in a *pro*-suburb spirit.
And in fact, may I say this: if you want to offer someplace like Scarborough in a manner that's palatable to "urbanites" as well as flattering to "its own", it's by emphasizing it as a place with a story, and a history. Whether it be First Nations, or c19 rural settlement, or c20 suburban development, or even c21 densification/diversification/naturalization etc.
That is, I'm offering a way to bridge the divide, and get in touch with a genius loci that goes beyond subways-subways-subways.
But one thing I find with your sort of Scarborough/suburbia-defender is that that sort of perspective is *totally lost* on you. You wouldn't be able to seek and present such pieces or links; they fly completely over your head. It's up to someone like *me* to seek, and find, and even have the inherent curiosity about such links. *You can't*. And when I present them, they *still* fly over your head.
Why? Why are you so indifferent? Or is this an urban-libertarian "history is bunk; it's all about the people" thing?
Why is the kind of suburban narrative you're defending so...*dismal*? Like, a place without a story, *any* story whatsoever, except that of the running day-to-day present? It even sounds like the suburban place where you live is, in your words, "beautiful"...but without a story. It's like it's "beautiful" in completely self-serving terms.
Because if you're going to be speaking up for Doug Ford as "the voice of Scarborough", while totally disregarding the actual sensual fact of Scarborough as a place with a history and a place with stories, may I ask you...
How did you get to be so tasteless?
How did you get to be such a philistine?
And what are you doing in Urban Toronto in the first place?
Im not really interested in the light you are trying to box me. If you're not I apologize just seems that way a bit.
So I will try to shed some light if it helps at all as I don't support the "suburbia" as a static way of life as you speak of it. Suburbia already exists, from another legacy and will evolve like everything else. How we evolve it is the debate I guess. What I do support the people within and their voices which need to be heard and are not on how we transition.
I love urbanism . I also get excited for every mid rise and high rise project that is proposed in Toronto even moreso when I hear something actually getting proposed in Scarborough. I had lived in a condo for a few years in downtown and suburbia and rode my bike most days to work, im an investor as well and thats what likely brought me to this forum. Family took me outside to Scarborough and my eyes were opened to how safe it was first of all. as I was scared crapless at first from the Scarberia perception. I also noticed the differences in what i was hearing form people within and what was being told in the media. I had no idea. All some ever heard was the Political slogans of Ford because the real story was not being told and lets be honest he was elected by apathetic people for many different reason to shake the tree. And it was a bit much, but the Politics was brewing for his ilk to tap into. I never voted for him, but i can see why others would. He just tapped into the apathy for transit and other issues. Its pretty simple, in terms of transit people just wanted to be better connected to the City. Sure there are other factors are some that hate streetcars, just like there are some that hate cars. The extreme people are not the majority as the story is made out to be. But its make for better headlines and it provokes so the media flames in. And I know the extreme opposites here are just a minority bunch as well. Although shocked at how personal some can be to opposing views. Some dont like the media being called out but its part of the issue. If you dont agree I dont care to argue, just stating what many feel strongly about and believe as as a fact. Trust me I had no clue until I moved out here and the bias is not just related to the SSE and groups like Renew Scarborough have been making inroads to work with the media and the reporting has improved since Ive lived here. I do also get why people think it tin foil hat rhetoric but Poltics are stained in our City media outlets and division sells. Not a good combo for an amalgamated City
I personally want to see streetcars extended, BRT/LRT run extensively throughout, but like many others I also support the subway or better connection to SCC and on Sheppard West in Scarborough which will spur higher quality "urban density" in these important areas for the future. I get it took a brutal Mayor to get that connectivity issue addressed but there are alot of people like me who just care about the longer term future of Scarborough and this is something we see as important. Does that make me an anti-urbansit?
I didnt know urbanism was a something so static that was a blanket approach full of people that have to think and be a certain way and had to be implemented the same everywhere. Like I really had no idea that was a thing. It really shouldn't be. Peoples voices and differing lifestyles within the City should be better respected to begin with so these figures never have the support to upset the apple cart. Things will transition and change for the "better" hopefully sooner than later and its not NIMBYSM at hand here when we see support to this extent. There is certainly a larger issue out there and contrary to some views here alot of people love living in Scarborough now and aside from transit its not a bad place to live at all and in another generation if we make inroads on transit will be a greater place. Call it bias if you want, but im not alone. The "bad" perception is in regard to small pockets, and not the greater area. Also people are investing in GTA suburbs including major businesses for those who assume no one wants to live in these areas and its not worth our while.
So its more than obvious many here dont agree with much of what i say. Thats perfectly acceptable. Being called, Ford, Trump, Kouvalis or and other names is not. As in reality im more of a moderate leftist Politically who just has no tolerance for people being talked over or looked down on as inferiors. And Political stripe shouldnt matter anyway but I get painted as something else. There is a reason our Politics are so bad in this City and I believe people are just misunderstood. The easiest path thru is to be more understanding. If I can shed some light thats great, if most still think think im full of crap thats fine too, just know im genuine in what im saying , not trying to offend anyone directly and trying to hopefully help shift the narrative a bit so we can move on with a little bit more cohesively.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The suburban Councillors must shed a tear and sigh when they see an episode of "Father Knows Best".
pman
Senior Member
Why must the former Toronto and Scarborough, or Etobicoke for that matter, be the same city at all? The current incarnation of Toronto abuts Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham and Pickering, but we aren't all one city with them. I'd be happy for Scarborough and Etobicoke to be whatever their residents want them to be. But as a resident of the core, I want to live in a vastly different community than the one Council's suburban majority imposes on me, and I'm pretty sure most of my neighbours do as well. Why shouldn't we have that right?
OneCity
Senior Member
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-activities-g...ough-the-free-scarborough-campaign/1214666412
https://www.facebook.com/freescarboroughcampaign/
This man Robert McDermott agrees with you. He was in the ward 44 race today to give his spiel.
I think we all share in the pain no matter what area you currently reside. It has certainly cost us ALL valuable time, progress, money lost to bickering, and now subway stops. I do think going forward at some point greater power could be given to individual areas Councillors than we have currently for all decisions made. The end result if we separate is similar and the savings for anyone side is debatable if we are sharing in the capital and operational cost of these decisions. Easier said than done.... But we are shooting our selves in the foot if we can speak directly to higher levels of Government will solid support of each others needs
Last edited:
zang
Senior Member
I detest this argument. It's specious at best. A subway does not guarantee density. York Mills Station, Dupont Station, Ossington Station—for that matter, half of the Bloor danforth line, and most of the Spadina line north of Bloor don't have anywhere urban density, with 30-60 years of subway proximity. Even along the Sheppard line is starting to get denser, but subway ridership doesn't support the idea that it's because it's there.
JGHali
Active Member
Well don't forget that the Sheppard subway has spurred the fantastic condo development next to a snobby mall at Bayview and a couple nondescript towers wedged in between Ikea and Canadian Tire. Nothing lovelier than living next to the 401 and somewhere you get cheap meatballs.
adma
Superstar
I dunno, we got along more or less fine as Metro back in the day--and a lot of us grew up as "Metropians" in spirit, especially once transit zones were abolished within the 416...
adma
Superstar
Ah, but there's a big gaping void in your narrative. You speak of your love of urbanism in terms of "every mid rise and high rise project". You speak in terms of a condo dweller, albeit a bike-riding one. You speak of being "an investor" as something that brought you to the forum.
But you do not speak of the pre-existing conditions.
And I'm not talking about a tableau of disgruntled Scarberians, either. I'm talking about a place with decades, nay, centuries (millennia?) of history. I'm talking about a place with depth; not a dreary, empty vessel and, er, tabula rasa for investor-friendly highrise/midrise.
And that may explain why *your own* pre-existing perspective of Scarborough was malnourished in the first place. And my take on it is: many of Scarborough's own have just as malnourished a take on their own turf. Beneath the surface, *that's* what you're learning. But, er, you don't get what the problem is.
It'd be like approaching Rosedale and Forest Hill from this dismal perspective and POV
http://torontolife.com/city/mcmansion-wars-neighbour-versus-neighbourh-forest-hill/
Last edited:
Bob Burnhamthorpe
New Member
I agree, no guarantee, but ... a lot of times ... if done right, it does.
Give it time (I realize in a few spots ... Glencairn and Chester best come to mind ... that's pretty much impossible) ... a city doesn't grow overnight (unless you're Dubai, or some Chinese city with 10,000,000 people no one's heard of).
Also, pretty much every subway/LRT system/network in the Western world has a few stations (Roding Valley, anyone?) that are genuine puzzlers ... and most likely would never be considered if considered/built today.
Look at Kipling, Islington, Sheppard West (formally Downsview), Finch, North York Centre, Kennedy ... and, yes, even Scarborough Centre stations ... all built not all *that* long ago (especially compared to older systems/stations) ... all greatly benefiting from a subway around it ... communities/neighbourhoods have sprouted up ... it's great to see.
Bob Burnhamthorpe
New Member
Why do you hate Toronto (specifically Bayview Village)?
zang
Senior Member
Is 44 years not enough? That's when York Mills Station was built. Ossington station: 51 years ago.
As for a "few spots"? It's a LOT of the subway line that doesn't have anywhere close to moderate density.
It shouldn't take a half-century to see the kind of returns you're speaking of. North York Centre Station was built 30 years ago and is now one of the densest areas outside of the core with a fairly natural growth.
One just has to look at Montreal to see how having subway tunnels everywhere has done little to spur dense development in the burbs—and how much depending on development that never came meant they spent nearly a half-century trying to pay off the massive debt incurred.
That doesn't mean we *keep* building "puzzlers", like an extension to a mall that most customers drive to anyway, or an industrial park in Vaughan to the tune of billions.
Mid-century subway development occurred before the concept of LRT even existed. Subways were once seen as the answer to long, medium and short range transit problems. Time and reality have shown they're best suited for medium range, with short range being streetcars/busses and long range being LRT and commuter trains being extra-long range. Frankly, Rosedale station could probably stand to be closed due to low ridership. The entirety of the Sheppard Line came incredibly close to being closed down for that same reason.
A handful of tall buildings doesn't density make. For every new condo near the terminii, there are still the a hundred box stores and malls (and their swaths of parking lot sprawl), strip malls and thousands of single-family dwellings. Those condos at Kipling and other places are the new version "sleeper towns", with ground-level retail (when it exists) being nail salons and dry cleaners that add no character to the area. They're flophouses for people who work downtown, they all seem come with two parking spots per unit and they aren't really doing much to build community. It's reactionary growth, related more to ever growing commute times and the failure of our commuter transit system than a great, livable area. They exist because the outer suburbs of the GTA didn't end up being the panacea once promised.
As for North York; there was far more than subways causing that growth. Metro Toronto pushed the development of "sub-centres" in their 1981 Official Plan. That meant going out of their way creating attractive living and working areas through development, grants and other tools. Though North York and Yonge & Eglinton were included in the plan, they were *already* places of growth (Eglinton already had a subway station anyway) by the mid-1970s. The plan wholistically failed for the other areas like Etobicoke and Scarborough, spurring mostly retail development (malls and more recently box stores), completely failed for York and West Hill, and despite all of that work, downtown still grew faster and bigger than where the effort was put. The plan was to take stress off the downtown core, and it obviously did not work.
Subways don't make density. Being somewhere people want to live and work makes density.
Last edited:
zang
Senior Member
The prevailing argument is that the 401 spurred that development, not the subway. The Sheppard Line ridership supports this idea.
OneCity
Senior Member
To me "urban-ism" and "suburbanism-urbanism" is just a transformation of the existing landscape and one size plan doesn't fit all. Ive learned not to worry or care what decisions were made in the past. For better or very often for worse legacy is legacy and out of our control. But the vision of how we build into the future with these current foot prints is all that matters.
Maybe you can explain better what Rosedale, Forrest Hill and almost every other stop along the BDL and YUS (outside of the direct downtown "U") which surrounded by single family homes off the main streets has to do with the areas in "Scarborough" or any of the locaton where transit is proposed there.
You speak of "Scarborough" which is 1/3 of Toronto land mass and 1/4 of the population as simple small neighbourhood constructed the same everywhere. Please let me know which part of Scarborough you are concerned about and what your main issue is with the areas(s) and we can discuss. It is quite diverse.
Last edited: