[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I typed a longer response and then lost it; isn't that the most frustrating thing?

It’s not “right on” the subway

Secondary plan said the subway was supposed to finish sometime soon. A shovel has yet to hit the ground. This throttles development phasing, population maximums, and numerous other issues.

-no one disputes there is a gap between an initial plan and what you end up with at the end of the day. It's still a very ambitious and laudable plan. It's ironic that over in the Yonge north thread, you basically talked about why the subway doesn't need to even go here.
-if we're talking about Langastaff/RHC it IS right on the subway x 2. The Langstaff half, yes, only has a direct subway connection at its far end. So what?

I meant major civic centre building (e.g courthouse, city hall, regional offices).

-a new growth centre does not need a city hall
-moreover, there is ALREADY a Regional office WITH a courthouse existing in RHC. So there. (On high tech road)

Didn’t Calthorpe also say the site should have personal rapid transit? Why would ‘the greatest design firm in the world’ suggest such an idea as pods to get around? If anyone wants to know about how ludicrous such an idea is, go to page 24 of TJ’s link. Seems more like a idea from 1968 than 2008.

Partially correct. A challenge is to get people from the furthest parts of the Markham side into the main mobility hub on the RH side. His solution was a circulator bus route in the short term with a possible upgrade to PRT at buildout. That's 20+ years away, so there seems little point arguing it's some kind of Jetson's idea. We may have autonomous cars by then, after all. And PRT didn't exist in 1968; it does now, so not sure what your point is there.

Continuing to bandy about 6yo renderings is not proof that the linear park will exist as shown, nor is it proof that +60% of people will take transit. Master and secondary plans change all the time. Certain EA’s haven’t been completed, and over time there will be issues requiring resolution – the lack of a subway (although major) being just one of them.

no, the park does not ensure a 60% modal split but then you objected to even bringing the subway here is and that most certainly IS relevant...

I won't comment on all the parts you pasted. No one disputes it's a unique and ambitious plan (the Markham plan) so it's not surprising RH, for example, expressed concerns. What those comments show to me is that they're not idiots; they know it will require ongoing monitoring and vigilance to realize.

In planning, NOTHING is guaranteed; that's why it's called PLANNING. but you can still try and set goals for your municipality and communities the same way you do for your life.

Edit: And after rereading your post, I'm noting a lot of personal attacks. That's not fair. If you read the reports, you'll see that things are not as guaranteed as you claim, and that what I've stated here and on the Yonge North thread seems to be reinforced to some extent. Clearly I'm not the only one that has concerns and doubts about this development.

I'll apologize if I'm crossing lines but the personal attacks from some real frustration with your inability to grasp and concede certain things. I'm not under the illusion the future has already occurred but I understand what the PLAN is much better than you do.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It’s not “right on†the subway

Secondary plan said the subway was supposed to finish sometime soon. A shovel has yet to hit the ground. This throttles development phasing, population maximums, and numerous other issues.

Precinct Plan hasn’t been finalized.
...
Continuing to bandy about 6yo renderings is not proof that the linear park will exist as shown, nor is it proof that +60% of people will take transit. Master and secondary plans change all the time. Certain EA’s haven’t been completed, and over time there will be issues requiring resolution – the lack of a subway (although major) being just one of them.
...

To be fair the document does mention that having a subway connection was a prerequisite to completion of the full plan. I believe phase 2 of the plan hinged on the subway being completed, so they are setting some standards as to what should be there before construction begins vs a "build it and the subway will come" mentality.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

To be fair the document does mention that having a subway connection was a prerequisite to completion of the full plan. I believe phase 2 of the plan hinged on the subway being completed, so they are setting some standards as to what should be there before construction begins vs a "build it and the subway will come" mentality.

I believe P2 can go forward when the subway starts construction but P3 is contingent on it being open and all the other transit (e.g. all-day-2-way GO and the Transitway) being online AND it's contingent on them hitting modal share targets all along. (There's a very detailed chart in the PDF I cited above but who wants to read it?)

The joke, for those who aren't on the Yonge north thread is that I kept hammering this point at 44North, to little or no effect, for days on end. He insisted that an LRT would serve this centre perfectly well and there were better ways to spend money (including all-day GO) than building this pointless subway, even as I tried and tried to explain that the centre's entire existence was premised on the extension of the subway and ALL the other infrastructure. And then he shows up here to say, "Well, it's not RIGHT on the subway and even so, development is throttled if they don't build it so I don't think this plan is achievable."

Yeah, no @#^@), Sherlock!

 

[44 North]

@TJ. Are you serious? My points in the Yonge North thread concerning my opposition to the subway were very specific. I am opposed to an extension of Yonge north of Steeles, but I support high-frequency subway-like mass transit using a mode which wasn’t looked at. E.g. a grade-separated Light Metro / ART / ALRT / ALRV / Skytrain-like system. Although such a system could handle in excess of 20,000peak, no such system was planned. I don’t know how many times I explicitly and repeatedly stated those terms. And you STILL haven’t gotten this, and are continuing with your debating tactic of misrepresenting others. *slow claps* Take a bow.

Regardless, in reply to your other point where you were clearly goading me on the subway issue. I believe the Yonge North modelling is unrealistic. And +$600M/km is an obscene amount of money. Even “world class†transit-using cities have cancelled projects costing a mere fraction, for even larger (and more realistic) developments. E.g London’s Riverside and the DLR.

Of course nothing is guaranteed until it is built. But every plan for the area shows a linear park through the middle of a pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood centred on a GO/Subway station. Remember where this discussion came from - someone said planners are continuing to plan automobile-oriented communities and held up this very plan as an example of that. This plan shows that planners are very much aware of the health and transportation issues and are doing everything within the parameters they can influence to create the best neighbourhoods they can.

I wasn’t trying to make some profound philosophical statement that “nothing is in life is guaranteed†– it should be noted that I’m referring specifically to the site in question (LH). And nor am I saying there won’t be a roadway median with something green and maybe accessible in the middle. But I still think it’s unfair to compare the most preliminary of renderings of an unusually unique and absurdly ambitious plan for a remote tract by a highway to an existing University Ave – at least not until much further in the planning process, or when the glaring issues have been sorted out.

The image of the median park that formed the framework of my initial rant was from the first renderings of the site, was drawn with the expectation that Viva was to be popular, that the subway was to be financed/finished, that more in-depth studies would be complete (studies which would back up the ambitious planning principles of such a development), and that numerous other issues would have been sorted out. And also that people may be using a Jetson-style pod system.

If there are 5,000 units of parking to go along with the 5,000 units approved so far, and an auto mode share just like every other centre - it’s hard to imagine the road system (or linear park) looking like the initial rendering. Like TJ said, there’s a balance between planning and economics. Since the economic side is more or less hard set, it’s only reasonable to assume that the planning side is most susceptible to changes in order to make the balance work. Some think this is an all-or-nothing scenario, but I don’t think economics, capitalism, and previous precedents would allow that to happen. I believe there will be a major trade off, and the road system will most easily reflect the changes.

Again, the neighbourhood is ‘not centred around a subway station’ – even the planners have conceded this. Yes, LH is situated around the GO station - which is fantastic for the site, or any new development. But interestingly in the planning studies and Yonge North modelling, it was assumed very few would even use GO. Apparently in 2031 it’s logically presumed that people can ride a small pod to zip around the futuristic mini metropolis...but oddly the Richmond Hill line will still be the same slow diesel train.

I won't comment on all the parts you pasted. No one disputes it's a unique and ambitious plan (the Markham plan) so it's not surprising RH, for example, expressed concerns. What those comments show to me is that they're not idiots; they know it will require ongoing monitoring and vigilance to realize.

If I or any other poster reiterated but reworded those exact same points (minus the quotes), I’m prety sure we’d see quite a few “comments†as a reply. So why not now?

 

[44 North]

I know I've written this about two dozen times, but again: a VIVA BRT (to someday LRT conversion) is NOT a grade-separated light metro system.

 

[howl]

The image of the median park that formed the framework of my initial rant was from the first renderings of the site, was drawn with the expectation that Viva was to be popular, that the subway was to be financed/finished, that more in-depth studies would be complete (studies which would back up the ambitious planning principles of such a development), and that numerous other issues would have been sorted out. And also that people may be using a Jetson-style pod system.

If there are 5,000 units of parking to go along with the 5,000 units approved so far, and an auto mode share just like every other centre - it’s hard to imagine the road system (or linear park) looking like the initial rendering. Like TJ said, there’s a balance between planning and economics. Since the economic side is more or less hard set, it’s only reasonable to assume that the planning side is most susceptible to changes in order to make the balance work. Some think this is an all-or-nothing scenario, but I don’t think economics, capitalism, and previous precedents would allow that to happen. I believe there will be a major trade off, and the road system will most easily reflect the changes.

Are we talking about the same thing? The linear park in the centre of the Markham Langstaff Secondary Plan is modeled on similar linear parks like the one in St.Lawrence neighbourhood and the new extension of Front Street into the West Don Lands. If you can't image that then you need to get out more. Regarding the economics of it - under Ontario law new high density developments are required to provide 1ha of parkland for every 300 units, so for 5000 units the Markham Langstaff area will have 16.7ha of parkland, or the developers will have to pay the equivalent in cash. Therefore developers have no economic reason not to build the park as proposed.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

@TJ. I am opposed to an extension of Yonge north of Steeles, but I support high-frequency subway-like mass transit using a mode which wasn’t looked at. E.g. a grade-separated Light Metro / ART / ALRT / ALRV / Skytrain-like system.,

This isn't the thread for it but I think it's clear that I (and several others) think it's insane to introduce a new mode of transit, creating transfers at either end, when you have the city's main subway a few km away. (Especially if you're already bringing the subway from Finch to Steeles, which I believe you supported, yes?)Clearly the planning for the site (by Calthorpe and Metrolinx) envisions a seamless transfer onto the TTC subway, with subway capacity. End of story.

And nor am I saying there won’t be a roadway median with something green and maybe accessible in the middle. But I still think it’s unfair to compare the most preliminary of renderings of an unusually unique and absurdly ambitious plan for a remote tract by a highway to an existing University Ave

Who compared it to University in a serious manner? Several others here, and the Calthorpe document, make it clear that the scale of the linear park is more comparable to the St. Lawrence example, or a Parisian boulevard. University, by comparison, is our version of the Champs D'Elysee. This is not that.

Again, the neighbourhood is ‘not centred around a subway station’ – even the planners have conceded this.

Again, you're splitting hairs. If we are looking at the entire RHC/Langstaff site it IS centred around a subway station; 2 in fact. Indeed, more than just a "subway" station it's a regional hub that would, if everything planned is built, would probably only be second (a distant second, sure) to Union Station. If you're going to harp on the MARKHAM half of the site, I would still point out that the majority of the site, and certainly the entire western half, is within walking distance of either the Longbridge subway or the GO/407/Viva/TTC intermodal hub. Again, end of story.

You can see that the massing recognizes this with very high densities at Yonge and over the centre rail corridor with tall - but not AS tall - towers at the Bayview end.

I mean, do you really think Transit-Oriented Development has to LITERALLY be on top of subway? It can't be, say, adjacent to a site where a subway and 5 other transit services converge within about 200m of teach other?

If I or any other poster reiterated but reworded those exact same points (minus the quotes), I’m pretty sure we’d see quite a few “comments” as a reply. So why not now?

I addressed them at a general level and was already well aware of them. If you want detailed responses, I'm sure Markham staff addressed them one by one. As I said, no one said it's a slam dunk and every understands making it happen requires effort and vigilance. (I'll even throw you a bone and mention that one little-discussed challenge is that CN will have to allow the developers to build over the rail corridor, as the development is on top of it. That's also no sure thing.)

 

[salsa]

This isn't the thread for it but I think it's clear that I (and several others) think it's insane to introduce a new mode of transit, creating transfers at either end, when you have the city's main subway a few km away. (Especially if you're already bringing the subway from Finch to Steeles, which I believe you supported, yes?)

Apparently not. But somehow a subway on Finch and Sheppard makes perfect sense according to 44 North logic.

 

[44 North]

Are we talking about the same thing? The linear park in the centre of the Markham Langstaff Secondary Plan is modeled on similar linear parks like the one in St.Lawrence neighbourhood and the new extension of Front Street into the West Don Lands. If you can't image that then you need to get out more. Regarding the economics of it - under Ontario law new high density developments are required to provide 1ha of parkland for every 300 units, so for 5000 units the Markham Langstaff area will have 16.7ha of parkland, or the developers will have to pay the equivalent in cash. Therefore developers have no economic reason not to build the park as proposed.

I know and love WDL and St Lawrence. But to be fair they both differ quite significantly from LG. They also weren’t planned with the thought that people will be riding down Front St in a pod.

Payments in lieu, amendments, site modifications, etc are generally part of the “balance†I was talking about. But TBH I was more referring to roadway allowances, and traffic modeling/demand which can dictate how much of it gets used. Considering the median park might be part of this roadway allowance (reasonable to assume since it’s in the middle of the road), I think it might be one of the first things to be altered or dropped. There can be cash in lieu, moving the parkland requirements to a different part of the site, or off site. So I still stand by my point that the median park might not exist as shown, and that new findings can drastically alter the infrastructure requirements – and by that alter Calthorpe’s vision.

Regardless, a quick Google search tells me that your extrapolation isn’t telling the whole story. In Markham, planners and developers attempted to work around the requirements - such that high-density sites could get up to a 65% reduction in parkland from the 1.2ha/1,000ppl standard. This was worked/balanced so that a graduated system has been adopted. Long and short: more densities (particularly in MGCs or UGCs) means less parkland per person; new rules means less money paid in lieu than previously; and purchasing less costly rural or suburban parkland off site can now be made in lieu. Some screen shots:

The proposed reduction is being introduced as an option...as it helps to achieve a municipal goal, that is, the promotion of compact, more dense development w/in intensification areas. As well, it responds to concerns raised by the development industry with respect to the high cost of parkland dedication related to higher density residential development.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Oh, sigh. You haven't been so off-base since a few posts ago when you said there were no civic buildings (not even the existing courthouse/regional building!) planned for the site

As you surely know (?) Langstaff has a Secondary Plan which, as you surely know, is like a mini Official Plan of its own, so these general issues you cite in regards to the parkland allocations are not all relevant.

Per the actual secondary plan:
Approximately 14.5% (6.8 hectares) of the lands are to be dedicated as parkland. A further approximate 11.5% (5.4 hectares) of open space, such as the valley land and multi-use trail, but not included as part of the parkland dedication, will come to the Town. The Secondary Plan anticipates that the parkland dedication requirements for the Langstaff Gateway area will be consistent with the policies in the Official Plan. The obligation to meet this requirement will be met through a combination of land dedication and cash-in-lieu of parkland. The ultimate amount and location of parkland will be further refined through the approval of the Precinct Plans, and development applications.

This probably disproves whatever your original point was, but I don't even remember what it was....

Oh, it was about how the median park will likely go? Right, well, a chunk of the greenspace is a woodlot at the east end they can't touch so compromising on other greenspace would entail a lot of cash in lieu and, hey, maybe an optimist but I don't see your scenario unfolding. The linear park system isn't like some extra curb space they can either take or leave, it's a fundamental and intrinsic park of of the site design. It's fundamental to the road/circulator system, it's fundamental to the greenspace allocation, it's fundamental to the active transportation/walkability of the site etc. etc.

Instead of doing a simple Google search, why not read what the ACTUAL PLAN says? I'll help here:

minor adjustments to the alignment of roads may be approved without an amendment to this Secondary Plan only if the basic requirements of the Collector Road and street grid pattern and the principles of connectivity and human scale are maintained to the satisfaction of the Town


There's some other stuff about the parkland dedication and the continuous cycling/pedestrian network and even a whole schedule that defines the various parks (of which, again, the linear park is fundamental) but I think that quote makes it pretty black and white; and that's for a MINOR adjustment, not the MAJOR and fundamental shift you proposed.

Oh, here's another quote for your perusal:
"The locations, configurations and boundaries of these lands will be confirmed through the Precinct Plans, development
plans and may be revised in the process ofdevelopment approval without further amendment to this Secondary Plan [HA HA! THINKS 44NORTH!], to the satisfaction of the Town and regulatory agencies provided the principle of a linear system is maintained"

Yeah, it's subjective and a dumb-ass council could set a low bar for "satisfaction" or "the principle of a linear park" but if you look at the legal language of the approved secondary plan it makes what you suggest is very probable, in fact, rather IMprobable.

No one is disputing, again, that plans change between proposal/approval and actual construction but your scenario remains a pure fantasy. Kind of like the transit map you keep talking about as if it's an ACTUAL alternative plan. Coming up with fantasy plans is all fine and good - I'm sure we all have great fan fiction ideas for Star Wars or Twilight or whatever - but there's a difference between having Lawrence Kasdan's "fan fiction" idea for Star Wars and mine. Similarly, there's a big difference between Peter Calthorpe's idea of what the site can be and yours.

 

[44 North]

Yeah, the parkland dedication points I highlighted happened well after the Secondary Plan. And if you look at the reports they came from, LG is very much highlighted.

We’re talking about LG, not RHC.

Much less cash in lieu than when the Secondary Plan was crafted.

I don’t doubt there may be something green in the median. But I do doubt that it will look anything like Calthorpe’s vision. Particularly if an extra lane of road is required.

The quotes you highlighted seem to back up the notion that there will be many changes, which we’re already seeing with the repealing/replacement of the Parkland Dedication By-Law.

 

[innsertnamehere]

can we keep this discussion to a single thread at least please? Stick to the yonge line thread if you have to continue this bickering.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Some of the 1950's & 1960's bungalows or split-levels are being either renovated or rebuilt. Second floors being the simplest, but if just renovated, that would include insulation and other upgrades.

I remember living in a 1960 style bungalow as a kid, for a couple of years. We moved out because the house was poorly insulated, expensive to heat, and too far to walk anywhere.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Speaking of Langstaff, what will Seaton look like? (It's already looking pretty terrible, by the by). The stuff that's been built up Brock almost as far as Taunton is the same old build of yesteryear as far as I can tell....and all I see north of there is grading going on along Taunton with signs for Mattamy Homes. Mattamy = I'm already dreading what's going to be built there. I used to walk those fields as a teen a decade ago, now it's a Mattamy. *shudder*
Were there not stricter guidelines that were supposed to be followed in Seaton? All I see thus far is the same old soulless waste.

 

[howl]

Speaking of Langstaff, what will Seaton look like? (It's already looking pretty terrible, by the by). The stuff that's been built up Brock almost as far as Taunton is the same old build of yesteryear as far as I can tell....and all I see north of there is grading going on along Taunton with signs for Mattamy Homes. Mattamy = I'm already dreading what's going to be built there. I used to walk those fields as a teen a decade ago, now it's a Mattamy. *shudder*
Were there not stricter guidelines that were supposed to be followed in Seaton? All I see thus far is the same old soulless waste.

I agree. From it's promising beginnings Seaton's design got worst and worst every time the plan was revised. Part of the problem is all the ravines and creeks that run through it are subject to much stricter rules than when the plan was first conceived. What was a logical centralized new urban town has become a disjointed mess. Also because it's doesn't have a rapid transit connection the initial idea of a substantial high-density core is not viable from a transportation point-of-view so they've had to scale back the high-density areas to almost nothing. With all those ravines and open spaces it will be nice when it's completed, but nice in a very suburban way.