[jje1000]

Not really any update, but I notice now that the area around the 401 in the western side of Milton has filled up with massive warehouses and logistics centres.

Sort of a shame, as it's right beneath the shadow of the Niagara Escarpment.

 

[Railrunner]

Not a mirage. Downtown (?) Vaughan looking considerable from the 400SB today.

 

[just east of the creek]

Thinking of farmland as a national resource...so I will add this article that came to me recently (It could also be dropped into Justin Trudeau's Canada, Doug Ford's Ontario etc ). The article does not reference urban sprawl, but the idea of farmland as a national resource.

From the Canadian Senate and Glacier Media:

The Canadian Senate agriculture committee today released 25 recommendations to protect the country’s soils.

Chief among them are requests that the federal government designate soil as a strategic national asset and that the country have a national soil advocate, similar to Australia.

Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human and Social Health comes after two years of hearings and study.

It notes that since 1984, when Saskatchewan senator Herb Sparrow led the groundbreaking Soil At Risk report, soil management has improved and crop yield has increased with the widespread adoption of no-till farming.


However, “these gains have also masked the effect of continued soil degradation and loss of agricultural land in every region of Canada.”

It said climate change and extreme weather events, urbanization, and misread outcomes of soil management practices are contributing to those concerns.

“We do not have another 40 years to protect and conserve soil. We must act now.”

The report said Canada requires an overarching strategy to collect better data. It says a national soils institute database that shares information with provinces, academics and producers should be established.

Other recommendations include the creation of a viable carbon market for producers and a crop insurance program that incentivizes ecological goods and services provided by producers.

More to come.

 

[Undead]

Long overdue! We can't keep losing farmland for suburban subdivisions that do nothing but enrich the developer overlords.

 

[innsertnamehere]

yea, lets all live in 400sf condos in Milton so that we can save some vague idea of "food security" despite total crop yields continuing to rise at record highs despite shrinking land bases.

People need land to live, especially at the GTA's growth rates.

Those subdivisions do far more than "enrich developers". They provide homes to millions of people to build their lives in.

 

[Undead]

If you see my post history, you'll realize the extent to which you're misrepresenting my position.

The real issue here is we simply don't need population growth (or even most economic growth) at all.

The only reason people "need a place to live" is because the big businesses are infinitely greedy and lobby the government to needlessly grow the population. So you're also obscuring the real problem.

edit: while we had a record grain harvest globally last year, this does not contradict with protecting farmland.

 

[Northern Light]

yea, lets all live in 400sf condos in Milton so that we can save some vague idea of "food security" despite total crop yields continuing to rise at record highs despite shrinking land bases.

People need land to live, especially at the GTA's growth rates.

Those subdivisions do far more than "enrich developers". They provide homes to millions of people to build their lives in.

@Undead is on point.

Rolling over Class 1 farmland is extremely negative not just for local, but for global agricultural production.

The first object is fewer people.

The second is then to shift the where of the people, there are lots of potential centres on the Great Lakes (TBay, The Sault etc.) which could accomodate growth if desired while not adversely affecting Class 1 farmland.

The third is how to best accommodate growth in the GTA (which to my mind is not desirable, but I digress), within that context, we're better off bulldozing entire post-war ranch subdivisions that have 400 homes spread over 300 acres of land, (a lot consumed by roads, not just lot size, and starting over.

The same neighbourhood reconcieved, needn't be hugely dense, midrises at the periphery, one new main through street with 4 -5 storey lowrise stacked towns and apartments, and the balance, simply tighter single family homes, every last one of the units at least 700ft2, and the houses at least 1,500ft2..........and you would still be well over triple the population that block can handle.

Going from a neighbourhood of 1000 to 4000++

Repeat that 50x across the GTA and you have room for another 150,000 people without losing a single acre of topline farmland.

 

[afransen]

yea, lets all live in 400sf condos in Milton so that we can save some vague idea of "food security" despite total crop yields continuing to rise at record highs despite shrinking land bases.

People need land to live, especially at the GTA's growth rates.

Those subdivisions do far more than "enrich developers". They provide homes to millions of people to build their lives in.

There are more marginal agricultural lands that could be prioritized for development over agricultural land.

 

[innsertnamehere]

@Undead is on point.

Rolling over Class 1 farmland is extremely negative not just for local, but for global agricultural production.

The first object is fewer people.

The second is then to shift the where of the people, there are lots of potential centres on the Great Lakes (TBay, The Sault etc.) which could accomodate growth if desired while not adversely affecting Class 1 farmland.

The third is how to best accommodate growth in the GTA (which to my mind is not desirable, but I digress), within that context, we're better off bulldozing entire post-war ranch subdivisions that have 400 homes spread over 300 acres of land, (a lot consumed by roads, not just lot size, and starting over.

The same neighbourhood reconcieved, needn't be hugely dense, midrises at the periphery, one new main through street with 4 -5 storey lowrise stacked towns and apartments, and the balance, simply tighter single family homes, every last one of the units at least 700ft2, and the houses at least 1,500ft2..........and you would still be well over triple the population that block can handle.

Going from a neighbourhood of 1000 to 4000++

Repeat that 50x across the GTA and you have room for another 150,000 people without losing a single acre of topline farmland.

we can talk about "fewer people" and ideals of making people move to Northern Ontario, but that simply isn't reality. Nor is it really practical to "bulldoze" entire neighbourhoods.

Ideals are one thing - actual implementation tools which will actually deliver housing affordability are another. And what we are doing right now ain't it.

 

[Northern Light]

we can talk about "fewer people" and ideals of making people move to Northern Ontario, but that simply isn't reality. Nor is it really practical to "bulldoze" entire neighbourhoods.

Ideals are one thing - actual implementation tools which will actually deliver housing affordability are another. And what we are doing right now ain't it.

There is nothing impractical or idealistic about flat-lining population growth. The choice would be popular w/the public, its not like we require a one-child policy, people are self-implementing close to same. We simply need to admit far fewer new entrants, Its instantly decidable by the federal cabinet and there is no compensation to anyone required. Its far cheaper than building to support that growth, when we have a lot of catch-up to do as it is.

***

Equally, we can compel new entrants to settle where we wish them to, we do this now in fact, as a large portion of immigration is done through the provincial nominee program. You are required to move to the province that nominates you. That control does lift after a period time, but not the week after you arrive.

We used to require moving to specific places, many people on UT have either grandparents or great grandparents who did just this.

Additionally we already have 'carrot' tools of all sorts. For years we've had programs to rebate a material portion of medical school tuition for doctors who agree to practice in Northern Ontario for a set number of years.
We can do the same for engineers, IT specialists, University profs, architects or farmers or loggers or miners etc.

***

Finally, what's impractical about bulldozing a 400-home subdivision? We're expropriating about the same numbers of homes/properties for the current round of transit and highway infrastructure investments, its just that we're doing so in disparate locations rather than one focused location.

You pay people, for argument's sake, 400 homes at 1.5M each, so 600M, you remove any homes that aren't heritage that are in the way of the scheme, perhaps saving a handful that are in great condition and it would add architectural variety.
Demo costs at 200k per including backfill works out to another 80M.

You plow one new main street through, and build associated water/sewer etc. You open up/sculpt/connect a couple of cul-de-sacs and short-roads and leave most of the rest.

You're out 800M, plus construction costs, for freeing up 300 acres of already serviced land, that already has nearby parks. schools, community centres, fire halls etc.

When you consider a single new Rec. Centre can run north of 100M; a single new elementary school 50M+ I think those numbers look pretty reasonable, not like fanciful extravagance.

 

[jje1000]

we can talk about "fewer people" and ideals of making people move to Northern Ontario, but that simply isn't reality. Nor is it really practical to "bulldoze" entire neighbourhoods.

Ideals are one thing - actual implementation tools which will actually deliver housing affordability are another. And what we are doing right now ain't it.

IMO the thing standing in the way of subdivision redevelopment is land ownership, and an Anglo cultural resistance to the liberal use of expropriation. It's not like an industrial site that has one owner, which can be bought out and instantly produce a site ready for a couple of towers (VMC). With subdivisions, land has to be accumulated piecemeal to avoid a PR disaster, and as a result, this slows down the process. Where there's high demand (i.e. around NYCC and Bayview), you can see the gradual erosion of subdivisions and their redevelopment into towers and midrises, and that is taking decades.

I think the solution for fixing bad land use in our suburbs will be more surgical, in the form of releasing zoning restrictions and allowing for landowner right-to-building, combined with the creation of local hubs and selective ROW improvements to fix connectivity. In the end, suburbs will still be suburbs, but they will be denser and more vibrant. There's countless theses on this topic in the various thesis collections at any Ontario architecture school, which I think are worth a look at.

Also, Ontario should really be looking at a comprehensive vision of enlarging its small towns as well. Ontario can't just be Toronto and a handful of middling small cities surrounded by dying towns.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Assembly of SFHs is becoming much more common in Toronto over the last few years for development, and was common in the 1960's as well.

It's not actually *that* hard.

The problem is that until very recently basically any SFH lot was considered basically undevelopable with limited chances of success to achieve a substantial rezoning.

This is now very quickly changing, and you are seeing assemblies in many areas like off of Yonge south of Steeles, Weston, around Glencairn subway station, etc.

 

[Northern Light]

Assembly of SFHs is becoming much more common in Toronto over the last few years for development, and was common in the 1960's as well.

It's not actually *that* hard.

The problem is that until very recently basically any SFH lot was considered basically undevelopable with limited chances of success to achieve a substantial rezoning.

This is now very quickly changing, and you are seeing assemblies in many areas like off of Yonge south of Steeles, Weston, around Glencairn subway station, etc.

Agreed.

Though lets also add, in certain areas where the grid is more widely spaced, proper redevelopment would call for completing at least one new grid street (~1km on centre) which could not only serve as a car route, but logical secondary bus route, cycle track route etc.

The City is somewhat behind on contemplating this, and that is a limiting factor.

 

[Sunnyside]

Assembly of SFHs is becoming much more common in Toronto over the last few years for development, and was common in the 1960's as well.

It's not actually *that* hard.

The problem is that until very recently basically any SFH lot was considered basically undevelopable with limited chances of success to achieve a substantial rezoning.

This is now very quickly changing, and you are seeing assemblies in many areas like off of Yonge south of Steeles, Weston, around Glencairn subway station, etc.

This is a good direction, glad to hear it’s happening. I was very curious as to why it wasn’t till now, but it’s good that winds are changing. Are these assemblies for townhomes? That would strike me as the most obvious move.