Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Horizontal/diagonal escalators?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Le Gique
- Start date
Palma
Senior Member
People more likely to choose condos in East Harbour. Condos will sell for less in Sc arborough and cheaper looking. Plus this talk of centre centres amazes me. There is only one city and it is Toronto so that means one city centre which is City Hall.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm curious, are there any cities in the world where Metro Toronto's suburban centres models, as originally envisioned, has been successful?
Hopkins123
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure this model has been practiced to some extent in China, specially Shanghai's "One-City-Nine-Towns" project which started in 2001 to varying degrees of success. You can read more about it here: http://suburbs.info.yorku.ca/files/...er-Planned-Communities-in-Chinese-Suburbs.pdf
OneCity
Senior Member
Surely the downtown core will always be the Golden egg of investment. But you have put a false negative exaggeration on the future of SCC. Do you consider the recent North York and Etobicoke condos around the subway "cheap" or not in demand? Would the same level of investment even exist if it wasn't for the subway?
There is a great demand around well connected transit, with a movement towards an urban setting and close proximity to the core. That alone will sell in Toronto with or without much promotion and a highly focused plan for these areas. I drove down Hwy#7 in Vaughan yesterday to see large billboard marketing signs with pictures of a bland "Vaughan now" and comparing to the predicted vision of "Vaughan Next". Great focused marketing plan to excite investment, a great tool like many other things they do in the outer 905 suburbs to make their areas the best they can and revitalize with high quality. Its a shame Toronto could never focus enough do anything like that to for revitalization in its suburban areas.
In any event there will be great demand selling a main inner suburban growth hub with seamless connectivity than one which has been separated on a different technology than the rest of the City. The condo quality you speak of will improve drastically due to the solid demand for quality transit, greater living space for the dollar than the City's Core condos and just the general evolution of new designs being allowed in this City beyond the standard mid to late 1900's box.
Last edited:
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Perhaps Japan. Tokyo has numerous satellite cities including Yokohama which is the largest one and the Minato Mirai 21 district of Yokohama was built starting in the 1980s so it is pretty new. Similarly Osaka has several large satellite cities including Kyoto and Kobe. It is pretty hard to compare though since Japanese cities are so much bigger than Toronto. There are multiple privately operated commuter rail lines linking Tokyo with Yokohama and Osaka with Kyoto/Kobe.
crs1026
Superstar
London's Canary Wharf is a relevant case study. Took a long time for that project to work out, but it did. It's about patience, persistence..... and good transit.
- Paul
- Paul
OneCity
Senior Member
Exactly. Even the great City cores like Downtown Toronto took decades of planning, patience, persistence,... and good transit to flourish. Its a snowball effect that starts with a focused plan, a solid foundation and a never ending commitment to promote and enhance the plan.
Is it possible Toronto is too big, and has too many differing needs to focus on its suburban revitalization with great urgency and attention to key details? Its been that way since amalgamation and only the suburban areas around well connected transit from another era have revitalized with quality. Aside from transit there is little attention being paid to promote anything of quality. Many 905 municipalities are finding success with competitive, detailed, and focused revitalization plans that started decades ago and have continually been a priority.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Canary Wharf is in no way comparable to Toronto's suburban centres (Scarborough Centre, North York Centre, Etobickoe Centre, etc...)
Canary Wharf is located adjacent to central London. Roughly comparable to the location of Toronto's Portlands or the Unilever site. You can easily bike between central London and Canary Wharf in 20 to 25 min. And it's only a 10 minute trip between central London and Canary Wharf by transit. It's a totally different situation than Toronto's suburban centres.
OneCity
Senior Member
Certainly geographically its not a great match but I think the point was you need build the right foundation, be patient and persistent for any plan to work. The extra distance between Toronto's main suburban nodes makes the need to have a seamless transit between them even more critical to their future success.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Canary Wharf's comparison in Toronto should be the East Harbour site.
crs1026
Superstar
I agree that Canary Wharf is fewer km's from the City Center than STC or NYCC, but I still think it has valid parallels. The absolute distance is not the key, it's more the issue of it being conceived from the start as a standalone city center.
When it was initiated, it was in an area that was considered desolate and unmarketable for both residential and business use. Originally it was thought unlikely (by all except the proponent) that employers would want to locate there because it was at a distance from the London business center. The 10-minute transit link didn't exist (it now has a direct line) and cycling really wasn't viewed as how one wanted to commute, as the territory in between was in a state of urban blight. It was also at a distance from London's commuter train termini. There was a glut of commercial real estate space in London at the time and urban planning was tilted against, rather than promoting, the site as a new business center.
Those conditions were reversed over time, and the site has flourished. The proponents went bankrupt along the way, but the site is now high value.
- Paul
When it was initiated, it was in an area that was considered desolate and unmarketable for both residential and business use. Originally it was thought unlikely (by all except the proponent) that employers would want to locate there because it was at a distance from the London business center. The 10-minute transit link didn't exist (it now has a direct line) and cycling really wasn't viewed as how one wanted to commute, as the territory in between was in a state of urban blight. It was also at a distance from London's commuter train termini. There was a glut of commercial real estate space in London at the time and urban planning was tilted against, rather than promoting, the site as a new business center.
Those conditions were reversed over time, and the site has flourished. The proponents went bankrupt along the way, but the site is now high value.
- Paul
BMO
Senior Member
So what you're saying is that in terms of city building it was a success, but in terms of actually making money for anybody involved in creating it, it was a failure? Doesn't seem like an enticing thing to emulate if you're a private developer.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The Docklands is successful because it is difficult to build from scratch at such a high density in the rest of London (especially in the pre-2000 era). That's not a Toronto problem - though it was the Metro Toronto thinking at the time for various reasons (each of the borough wanted to have their own "downtown"; the downtown core was facing development pressure that local politicians were eager to relieve through decentralization). Reality of course turned out rather differently than intent - even high access subcentres like Yonge and Eglinton and NYCC couldn't get office developments off the ground post 92.
AoD
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
And what's wrong with East Harbour + developing other civic centres? I'm sorry but most people can't afford East Harbour and downtown. STC condos when they come might be within reach of more people price-wise. Might as well redevelop the area so they have everything within reach like Yonge & Eg or NYCC to make it desirable. And I'm amazed with all this talk about downtown being paralyzed due to inadequate transit, relentless giant development, a rapidly increasing density that you would ridiculed any solutions that would give alternative to people from going downtown if the same services/environment could be replicated outside the core.
Fairview Mall area, Bayview Village and NYCC gives me a place to work, shop, restaurants, movies and government services...all on the Sheppard line. If I need nightlife, sport events or the performing arts, I go downtown. With your logic, the city should bank it all on downtown forcing people to further overcrowded the DVP, Toronto's streets and line 1. Same for friends living at Yonge and Eg and NYCC. If Toronto had a subway system like Paris, NYC and London, I'd agree with you...but we don't and not for the foreseeable future. We have mini-centres connected to the subway that is already over capacity...So I disagree.
That's how Montreal operates. Everything is downtown and you know what happens? People LEFT the island for the suburbs, especially young couples and families. There was a census that even showed tha Montreal lost people where all the other cities population increased. Why would they stay? They can't afford downtown or places near a subway station. So places far east, west or north-East/West are affordable. At what price? The commute is HORRIBLE. Once you reach the subway, It's overcrowded. I lived there and couldn't afford anything near the subway, so I had a car, which is a must even in Montreal because if you have nothing near by, it sucks living there. So people left Montreal for the suburbs replicating those centres you're mocking. Brossard, Laval, Longueuil, Repentigny and beyond where the winners. When the blue line reaches Anjou (geographically located the same way STC is in Toronto), lots of people will find it desirable to live in Anjou instead of leaving the city altogether. I don't like the 1 stop subway any more than anybody else (prefer 3 stop) but I see the value of developing STC.