44 North
Senior Member
Clearly we beg to differ on Langstaff but to compare it to Doug Ford's vision (a hotel you can park your boat at!) is grossly insulting. We both know Doug Ford doesn't know WTF a streetcar suburb is and he wouldn't know Ebenezer Howard from Howard the Duck.
On the other hand, Langstaff aside, the combination of factors you describe are perfectly encapsulated in Calthorpe's vision of transit-oriented new urbanist communities. I wasn't talking about Langstaff specifically, anyway, as much as NU-TOD as a re-visioning of the Garden City, which is most certainly explicitly is. Again, read Fishman's intro to The Regional City.
Calthorpe also did work in Markham Centre, updating the original plan and whether or not that meets your definition, I don't know. But specific local developments aside, if you're looking at a 21-st Century version of the Garden City and streetcar suburbs (i.e. a balanced, polycentric urban whole with ample green space and development concentrated along transit corridors), that's Calthorpe in a nutshell.
I initially thought the Doug Ford plan was beyond preposterous – particularly the boat-in 5 Star hotel at the mouth of Canada’s third most polluted river. And IMO his "backroom vision" as a whole was definitely silly. But to be fair, a good portion of the plan was grounded in reality. To the best of my knowledge the hotel location would be at the old Home Depot lands, where there is an ongoing plan for something major. And although the idea of a boat-in hotel does seem crazy, some of it is factually correct. We already have ferries in use in TO, and water taxis. As well, WTO’s plans do acknowledge future ferry use for the Port Lands. Even John Tory brought up the idea during the election.
But long and short, Doug’s plan was backed by developers and stakeholders who are in fact planning a major retail/residential project for that site - regardless of WTO’s governance.
http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/3c-waterfront
Re: Langstaff Gateway,
I can understand why the subway is wanted so much for the site. Yes, it’s to boost land values. But I think it’s ultimately because there’s SFA about LG that’s even remotely interesting or of value. If there was a geographic feature, or a key intersection, or...anything - I could understand it being specifically chosen or worthy of becoming an ultra high-density downtown-esque pocket. But there’s virtually nothing. LG can't even claim that it's on the happening and burgeoning Yonge Corridor, considering it's vastly E-W with very little of the site actually fronting onto Yonge
IMO it doesn’t matter what form of planning is chosen, there’s gotta be a proverbial nucleus. NYCC had a city hall, and a possible telecommunications tower. And specific to Markham: even the oddball subdivision that is Cathedraltown at least has a cathedral.
***
I guess the next part of this post is taking things really off topic (but what is the "topic" of this thread, really?). Earlier I was talking about Towers in the Park, the Garden City movement, or what could exist if we chose to develop our islands. I’m sure some are aware of these plans. But if not, they’re pretty cool to look at. The plan was called HarbourCity, and it was a Jane Jacobs-backed proposal to develop the Island Airport, and create a series of inhabited islands out in the lake. I like the idea behind it: medium density residential, ample parkland, connected by rapid transit, and heavy use of non-auto transportation (e.g - personal watercraft). Not to mention that it's exceptionally unique (for TO, but also for North America). It seemed like a cool idea that I think would be just as good now as when it was first proposed.
http://www.canadianarchitect.com/news/harbour-city-revisited/1000405724/?&er=NA
http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/09/remembering_harbour_city_torontos_unbuilt_town_on_the_lake/