Condocraze
New Member
Not access to everyone, but if one needs to be replaced under some circumstances, it should be available and free.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
doady
Senior Member
Mississauga needs more trees, not less.
Transportfan
Senior Member
^^ That would basically need a "The World After People" scenario. Seriously, looking at the first pic in the group I posted, you couldn't cram any more trees in there if you tried. Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them die because their roots will be choked.
Dandy Horse
Active Member
I honestly think overplanting is the last issue the suburbs have with trees.
the main issue is they're terrified of planting anything that will cause shade on the road, ie close to the road. honestly one if the biggest difference between this side of the humber and the other is the fact that the west side has absolutely no sidewalk shade, despite being well old enough to have plenty.
this is something that needs to change if we're going to get anywhere in making the suburbs walkable. they're positively sun-baked in the summer.
the main issue is they're terrified of planting anything that will cause shade on the road, ie close to the road. honestly one if the biggest difference between this side of the humber and the other is the fact that the west side has absolutely no sidewalk shade, despite being well old enough to have plenty.
this is something that needs to change if we're going to get anywhere in making the suburbs walkable. they're positively sun-baked in the summer.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
A lot of "improvements" to the roadside includes the removing of trees, widening the roadways, and keeping evergreens away from the roads. All in the case of "safety", but actually to allow the faster movement of automobiles by providing better conditions for higher speeds.
Dandy Horse
Active Member
true, however you can only blame so much on the MTO, eventually it comes down to a culture of not valuing the tree canopy among the inhabitants of an area. especially considering trees are basically free if you grow it from a seed (shockingly this is how trees are made!)
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Then plant a damn tree then. Why do we need the government to give us trees?
doady
Senior Member
You're saying citizens should go plant trees on property that's owned by the government? Okay there.
spider
Senior Member
Damn right!
Either on City property or on your property adjacent to the property line.
adma
Superstar
Except that...well, not just any old tree. There's reasons from environmental and aesthetic on down that the Vity takes responsibility for tree planting...
doady
Senior Member
I'm going to go plant some palm trees along Britannia.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
You have it backwards, the citizens own the property and hire the government to manage it in common. It's public property. You're the public. Unless there is a law against planting a tree in a public space, go for it.
Does a squirrel ask for permission before burying an acorn, which then becomes an oak tree? I expect that well over 50% of the trees in Toronto were not planted by government or citizens, but by nature.
adma
Superstar
Ah, but the city also removes, or endorses/encourages the removal of, many such squirrel/nature-planted trees. Y'know, "weed trees" a la Manitoba Maples, etc.
By your logic, Toronto's urban forests should be free to being choked dead by kudzu-esque invasive species.
ShonTron
Moderator
Brampton City Council voted 9-1 in favour of the Metrus townhouse proposal, despite an angry mob at the council meeting.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/18/brampton_councillors_approve_controversial_townhouse_plan.html
The right decision - negotiate with the developer, get a few useful concessions (library and park site) especially for low-rise residential.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/18/brampton_councillors_approve_controversial_townhouse_plan.html
The right decision - negotiate with the developer, get a few useful concessions (library and park site) especially for low-rise residential.
TOareaFan
Superstar
In my opinion it is a case of the wrong decision for the right reasons (if that makes any sense).
If you are going to rezone these lands for residential a medium (perhaps even high) density residential use is the best decision, despite the misguided objections of an organized community.
Rezoning here, though, is not the right thing to do. The sole and only reason that Metrus wanted the lands rezoned is because they lost out to another developer on Walmart as a tenant.
In isolation, without any tenant names, the city had planned on these lands being commercial. The city does not have a "Walmart specific" zoning classification. If it was good planning that these be commercial lands (providing, both, community services and employment opportunities) then that does not change just because a developer loses a tenant and is too lazy/incompetent to re-work their development to attract other tenants.
If Metrus had not lost Walmart, would they be asking for this rezoning? Off course not. If they had not lost this tenant, would the city be looking to rezone the lands of the other developer who did not get the behemoth from Arkansas?
As a taxpayer in Brampton I was not looking forward to the city spending money at the OMB with the "these houses are too small and dense" argument....but I would have loved them to be going there with the "good planning means a diverse community with multiple land uses. Metrus recognized the planning principles behind the commercial zoning when they thought they had Walmart and spent many months trying to land Walmart. Those planning principles have not changed just because Walmart chose to locate elsewhere" argument.