[salsa]

Interesting article over in ibiketo.ca, at this link:

Councillor Mike Layton is the most bike friendly councillor in city hall. He needs to speak out against this insanity.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Yeah, of course they're planning roads specifically for cars. Smart Centres Leaside anyone? There's a lot of new build in this city that has its head up its 1950s arse.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Andres Duany was involved in the design of the NOTL community (as well as Cornell, of course, and I think...North Oakville?). The execution varies but I drove through the NOTL one last year and thought it did the ersatz historical architecture thing nicely, without feeling like Disney or something.

Like I would maybe even live in one of those homes in New Amherst.....if I had reason to live in Cobourg and if they were close enough to the lake and the neighbourhood had a grocer and pub and doctor and bank and bakery and dentist and train station and cafe within 10 minute walking distance of my place. Me. Live in a house.

....it's not a full moon, is it?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Two articles of interest.

1)

From StreetFilms:

All across America people are falling in love with cities. People are craving interaction with their fellow humans. They don't want to commute long distances to work. They want to be able to safely walk around their neighborhoods and support the vitality of public spaces and the transformation of city streets.

[video=vimeo;119214500]https://vimeo.com/119214500[/video]





2)

From mainstreet.com:

Why Americans Move Closer to Their Jobs or Neighborhoods Where They Can Walk

Americans still believe that the location of their home ranks as most important among their real estate criteria. And the prospect of walking-distance proximity to their most important locales motivates their real estate decisions.

People are moving to be closer to their jobs, to live in more diverse neighborhoods or to be within walking distance of stores...

See this link for the rest of the story.

From 2007 to 2011, the number of cars purchased by people ages 18 to 34 fell almost 30%, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

 

[DKsan]

. Perhaps the local 15 and 11 buses should enter the GO loop.
.

The 15 and 11 do in fact use the GO bus loop, as well as a bunch of other routes (the 92, 13, 16). The 511 and 115 does not. I understand why the 511 doesn't go into the GO station, but I think the 115 should.

 

[Electrify]

Yeah, I don't really disagree. I just don't think you can look at a mall and really say, "Our neighbourhoods should be like this!" any more than you can do it with Disneyworld. But narrow streets, proper scale etc; I'm down with all that, of course.



Maybe it would help if you saw the ground-level renders because your impression is incorrect. There is a single road that goes from Yonge to Bayview and that's why they designed the Langstaff area (and the RH side, to a lesser extent) to an extreme transit-oriented degree. Because of the physical constraints at the site (and the phasing regime they built into the zoning) it's very unlikely it would end up like Avondale. There are unknowns and things change but the modal share target is 65%-non-auto, which is downtown-level. The final phase, at least on paper right now, can't proceed unless all the transit infrastructure is in place and they've already achieved 50%. Proceeding with more development without either of those things...well, it just doesn't work.

You can't erase the presence of Bayview and Yonge (or 7 and 407) but the access is so limited from the Markham side that they effectively said, "we're not taking those into account; we're operating on the assumption the roads basically can't take any more traffic." There are no wide arterials or anything like that within and lots of public realm, including a park that goes the entire length of the Markham side. Au contraire, the emergency services and transit people were very concerned about how narrow the roads are supposed to be. View attachment 41407

(This is slightly less true of the RH side which is closer to NYCC in that it's partially developed but it's already off to a good start in terms of density. Depends how you look at it: The Markham plan is amazingly ambitious but the RH plan is arguably more achievable....)

If it turns out as planned (and I acknowledge it's a big if as of today), it will put NYCC to shame in terms of transit orientation and modal share.

That image reminds me of University Ave. Think about that for a second... THAT SAID when I was in Montreal when I left a station (don't member which one) the exit led me straight into one of these median parks. The result was that it was actually used, rather than a forgotten set piece like on University.

 

[Memph]

That image reminds me of University Ave. Think about that for a second... THAT SAID when I was in Montreal when I left a station (don't member which one) the exit led me straight into one of these median parks. The result was that it was actually used, rather than a forgotten set piece like on University.

Yeah but the University Ave median "park's" design is pretty bad. Some parts if you're walking along it you have to walk right next to 4 lanes of traffic and just in general, being surrounded by 4 lanes of traffic on either side makes it kind of inconvenient to get to and unpleasant to be in.

Not to mention crossing from one part of the median to the other is not really intended to be possible, with no crossing signals or cross-walks and sweeping curves which are worsened by the fact that the median is pretty narrow.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6532...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDXdMSptW6UFSS7Q00R2eqw!2e0

In the Markham plan, the median is much wider, the adjacent traffic lanes are much narrower, one traffic lane and one parking lane, and only 1 lane (which will also be slower moving) to cross at intersections. It also looks like it would be pretty safe to cross from one part of the median to the next.

 

[44 North]

That’s a 6-year-old preliminary render. It’s basically ancient. I doubt anything like that would ever be built in York Region this century, and that amount of roadway allowance would never be squandered on parkland while giving the majority of commuters (i.e – single occupant drivers) one narrow lane of through traffic each way. And if Langstaff is to be the only road in/out of the subdivision, I’m pretty sure what will end up existing is an 8-lane arterial with three left-turn lanes at Yonge. IOW, a far cry from that preposterous Parisian streetscape in the preliminary render that's supposed to exist in 15 years.

I feel there should be no comparisons between a dated doodle and a great city like Montreal (or Toronto). For one, Montreal is 350 years old, with a density greater than TO’s. Not trying to rip on Markham or anything; it’s a fine area and is only improving. But a Sketchup scribble of some scrubland by a toll highway, in a “city†(using that term loosely) with a paltry density of 1,400/km sq should not be compared to a beloved cosmopolitan metropolis like Mtl. Besides, unlike other centres there are no civic buildings planned for Langstaff Gateway (nor at RHC for that matter). As well, there are no plans for a major educational institution (nor at RHC). Even Markham’s bid to house a York U campus is nowhere near this site.

Long and short: these are old plans for a subdivision by a highway. And contrary to what some say, this is not "right on" the subway. For one, some of the site is up to a km from the subway. But also the subway doesn't exist.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Not only is the only 8 lane arterial in the city University avenue in the downtown, there are also no triple left turn lanes that am I aware of. Certianly not coming out of a small area like the Langstaff Gateway development lands.

Likely access will be a simple 4 lane road with a single left and right hand turn lane.


Markham's density is also far, far above 1,400 people per square km. Roughly half the municipality is rural farmland, its incomparable to the fully built out area that is Montreal. Actual density is quite high, probably in the 3,0000 range, and increasing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Just try to get to Queens Park from Queens Park Station. There is a median, but there is also a flower bed in the way. People have to navigate to the narrow side See https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6598...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shi25S30tZ-nWszz20u1Zvg!2e0 to see how its looks in summer, then look at it for real today with snow windrows.

 

[howl]

Not only is the only 8 lane arterial in the city University avenue in the downtown, there are also no triple left turn lanes that am I aware of. Certianly not coming out of a small area like the Langstaff Gateway development lands.

Likely access will be a simple 4 lane road with a single left and right hand turn lane.


Markham's density is also far, far above 1,400 people per square km. Roughly half the municipality is rural farmland, its incomparable to the fully built out area that is Montreal. Actual density is quite high, probably in the 3,0000 range, and increasing.

The comparison with University Avenue is not a good one. The proposed linear park in the middle of the Markham Langstaff Gateway development is more like the park in the middle of the St.Lawrence neighbourhood (The Esplanade/Scadding Ave). It is not intended to be an arterial road. It is intended to be a linear park that connects through the neighbourhood for pedestrians and cyclists. It also happens to have some local or minor collector roads running along beside it. The main collector/arterial roads will run around the outside of the development block.

 

[W. K. Lis]

To see what University Avenue (née College Avenue) used to look like, take a gander at this link.

Both have the parliament buildings at Queen's Park visible.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Before I deal with the most wrongest guy on UT, thanks to those who pointed out how off the University Avenue comparisons are. The width of this ROW must be like 1/2 of what University is. Yeesh.

That’s a 6-year-old preliminary render. It’s basically ancient. I doubt anything like that would ever be built in York Region this century, and that amount of roadway allowance would never be squandered on parkland while giving the majority of commuters (i.e – single occupant drivers) one narrow lane of through traffic each way.

How can one person be so consistently wrong? The developers already agreed to it (yes, including the street network, which was studied by IBI, company of some repute, and the secondary plan already passed. Either stop commenting or actually read-up. The entirety of what you know about this is what I've chosen to post in the interest of schooling your sorry self. If you understood thing one about this plan (which you still do not) you would understand that THIS COMMUNITY CANNOT EXIST if the majority of commuters are in cars. It's an entirely different paradigm! This is like trying to explain the Apollo mission to someone from the Renaissance. "But sir, I sincerely doubt you'd be able to land one of these devices of which you speak on a surface that we know to be made of cheese!"
*facepalm*

And if Langstaff is to be the only road in/out of the subdivision, I’m pretty sure what will end up existing is an 8-lane arterial with three left-turn lanes at Yonge. IOW, a far cry from that preposterous Parisian streetscape in the preliminary render that's supposed to exist in 15 years.

You can be pretty sure but you'll also be pretty wrong. Again, the secondary plan already passed.
(There will also be an extension of one of the north-south streets beneath the 407 but that's a very minor access.) An 8-lane arterial would eat up so much land as to render the rest of the site undevelopable. It only makes sense (in terms of planning and economics) if they can build out to the maximum densities.

I'll type this extra slow so you will understand:
This. Community. Is. Not. Designed. To Handle. Car. Traffic.
It. Is. Different.
Like. How. An Orange. Is. Different. From. An apple.

Not that this is following some ancient site plan but try to think of Old Quebec or Rome or some other old place with narrow streets that, yes, can handle a few cars but which, by design, can only function when people travel by other modes. Get it?

I feel there should be no comparisons between a dated doodle and a great city like Montreal (or Toronto).

Now we're comparing doodles to cities? Are you equally disdainful of this New York City roadmap I got from AAA, since it fails to capture the awesomeness of the actual city? Do you even understand what we're talking about? But you keep fighting the good fight of Doodles vs. Cities. Keep on keepin on, sir.

If you think 6 years is "dated" you understand even less about planning than I thought, and that's going one. And it's not, for the 10th time, an architectural rendering; it's merely a massing model showing the building heights in relation to the streetscape.

Oh, and it happens to be by arguably the pre-eminent urban design firm on the continent if not the world, but we know such things don't impress you. Of course, again, that's because you can't understand the difference between a rendering of an actual building, a conceptual drawing/massing model and a real city so there's only so much evidence I can bring to bear that will be absorbed at your end. I'm sure you could scratch out something better in Illustrator than those useless bozos at Calthorpe Associates. Yeesh.

Besides, unlike other centres there are no civic buildings planned for Langstaff Gateway (nor at RHC for that matter). As well, there are no plans for a major educational institution (nor at RHC). Even Markham’s bid to house a York U campus is nowhere near this site.

First, what do you mean by "Civic Buildings"? Because there will most definitely be schools, libraries, community centres, fire stations and, you know, pretty much every kind of CIVIC BUILDING I can name that isn't city hall. So, once again, you're dead wrong.

And to clarify, Markham indeed submitted their Markham Centre site to York U but it's worth noting that Richmond Hill did submit the RHC site. It was York U that made the decision there. Given the land that would be required even by a satellite campus, it's not surprising Markham didn't feel they had any to spare within Langstaff but, by all means, slam them for it.

Long and short: these are old plans for a subdivision by a highway. And contrary to what some say, this is not "right on" the subway. For one, some of the site is up to a km from the subway. But also the subway doesn't exist.

How can one fool make so many mistakes in a single sentence!!??
-not old plans, you bozo. 2008 plans; secondary plan passed in 2010/11. Please learn thing one about planning before coming back here. Old plans. Crikey.
-it's BY a highway but it doesn't access the highway so it's as dumb as pointing out that some other subdivision is beside a forest or lake. The highway, indeed, is an OBSTACLE, not a plus here. But you've already demonstrated you don't understand even the most basic concepts that underlie the planning here, despite repeated attempts to explain it.
-Shocker, you're also wrong about the subway. The Longbridge station will be at the west end of the site. The RHC site is something like 250m from the centre of Langstaff. Only the far east end of Langstaff, close to Bayview, will be anything remotely resembling a real distance from either of the TWO subway stops.

SOME of the site will be up to 1 km away? How lost are you? That means almost the entire site will be within 1km of one of the biggest transit hubs in the region. Do you even read what you're typing? Do you know what a mobility hub is? Is any of this getting through? SOME of downtown Toronto is also 1 km (sometimes more!!) from a subway station and so what?

So, long and short, your posts are full of misunderstandings, misinformation and wrongheadedness. I can't speak for everyone, but many of us would like you to cease and desist til you get wise.

EDIT TO ADD: I know none of this gets through to you and none of it ever will but, for the record, this is the Powerpoint presentation Peter Calthorpe gave to Markham council, presenting the master plan for Langstaff. Maybe you'll learn something - probably not - but maybe others will at least find it interesting to see...
http://www.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/...t Services/pl090519/Langstaff Master Plan.pdf

 

[44 North]

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.

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

A secondary plan doesn’t mean written in stone. Amendments, appeals, re-phasing, re-examinations, and modifications can (and possibly will) occur. This is the point I was trying to make about how a rendering of a median park can’t be compared to anything tangible/currently existing: it’s not guaranteed (particularly in this instance). If there’s unused roadway allowance, and traffic demand warrants its use, there’s a chance it will be used.

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.

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.

Here are some points that back this up; found in the reports that you're supposedly familiar with:

Town staff note that…many of the comments and concerns remain unresolved…staff have concerns…
...
A 60% non-auto modal split is… an aggressive assumption, and while in principle RH staff support a high transit mode share…it is recognized that assumptions about on travel behavior need to be practical and realistic. The practicality of achieving this modal share is questionable considering half of the Langstaff site is beyond a 400m walking distance from higher order transit and the proposed mobility hub.
...
Circulation of people and movement of goods is restricted… “Issues related to infrastructure…are extremely complex and will certainly require much ongoing studies in the years to come”. The lack of ingress/egress opportunities matched with the planned population…could lead to unacceptable traffic conditions throughout the entire UGC and pose significant constraints on the road network…

Half the site is not within walking distance to higher order transit. The entrance of the proposed pedestrian connection is still 400m from RHC’s station. This should not be relied upon to justify the level of development proposed for that area of the Langstaff site, outside of an appropriate walking distance from the actual rapid transit station
...
Initial work by the consultant suggests that the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Centre, due to its unique function and location, requires broader financial instruments, upper level government funding, and new innovative funding tools. The work is assessing how the traditional development model needs to be revised to reflect the longer timeline for build out and complexities of developing in the Richmond Hill Langstaff Centre.
...
Ongoing monitoring of development and transit usage and modal splits, and strong links to phases, will also assist in determining if adjustments to either the development levels or provision of infrastructure are required over time.

Precinct Plans will provide a high level of implementation detail to further guide development
...
Of considerable significance are the policies...that link development phasing to infrastructure delivery. Because of the importance of the success of both the phasing and infrastructure delivery, both Town Council and Regional Council approval will be required to change the minimum non-residential requirements, maximum residential caps or key infrastructure requirements in any of the phases. An amendment to the Secondary Plan for these any of these items would also only be considered with the provision of detailed monitoring data regarding land use mix, and transportation modes and modal splits that supports the integrity of the broader Regional Centre and its planned function as a transit dependent community

Many more points in the reports. Some can't be copied/pasted, and don't care enough to do the work. But what's clear is that the median parks - as portrayed in the dated renderings - are not guaranteed.

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.

 

[howl]

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.

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

A secondary plan doesn’t mean written in stone. Amendments, appeals, re-phasing, re-examinations, and modifications can (and possibly will) occur. This is the point I was trying to make about how a rendering of a median park can’t be compared to anything tangible/currently existing: it’s not guaranteed (particularly in this instance). If there’s unused roadway allowance, and traffic demand warrants its use, there’s a chance it will be used.

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.

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.

Here are some points that back this up; found in the reports that you're supposedly familiar with:







Many more points in the reports. Some can't be copied/pasted, and don't care enough to do the work. But what's clear is that the median parks - as portrayed in the dated renderings - are not guaranteed.

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.

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.