[Student99]

Yeah, true enough.
But how much more will be enabled? Kennedy to Mississauga Rd along Mayfield is only one small slice along the length of the 413.
Bit disingenuous to say it is already too late, and use that as an example.

What about all the land from King to Old School Rd to Mayfield. These are huge swathes of land that will surely face huge development pressure.

Don't we need the development though? We are facing a housing shortage. Before you say density, keep in mind that not everyone wants that lifestyle, especially for a family. Other world class cities have much bigger footprints than Toronto.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Don't we need the development though? We are facing a housing shortage. Before you say density, keep in mind that not everyone wants that lifestyle, especially for a family. Other world class cities have much bigger footprints than Toronto.

Can't always get the exact lifestyle you want. I'd love to live in a mansion, but if we all lived in mansions ...

At Brampton density, the area between Old School, Mississauga, Airport, and Mayfield, can house 92,000 people. At Toronto density, it can house 180,000 people. At Old City of Toronto densities, that's 350,000 people. Which option aid housing supply more? Which one causes less environmental destruction?

Name me some "world-class cities" that have larger footprints (per person or total is fine) that doesn't have chronic congestion and pollution.

 

[afransen]

Don't we need the development though? We are facing a housing shortage. Before you say density, keep in mind that not everyone wants that lifestyle, especially for a family. Other world class cities have much bigger footprints than Toronto.

People who want low density lifestyle have many existing low density neighborhoods to choose from.

 

[allengeorge]

At Brampton density, the area between Old School, Mississauga, Airport, and Mayfield, can house 92,000 people. At Toronto density, it can house 180,000 people. At Old City of Toronto densities, that's 350,000 people.

This is an important point that we often gloss over (sometimes on purpose) when talking about accommodating people. It is possible to fit a lot more people into the same land we have currently developed without building 40-floor buildings. Doing so would have the additional benefit of utilizing the existing infrastructure more efficiently, and, over time, leading to more interesting walkable neighbourhoods. Yes, it would mean change, but not unreasonable, scary change.

We just have to have the will to do it, and not give into fear of the kind Bonnie Crombie was peddling on Twitter this week.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This is an important point that we often gloss over (sometimes on purpose) when talking about accommodating people. It is possible to fit a lot more people into the same land we have currently developed without building 40-floor buildings. Doing so would have the additional benefit of utilizing the existing infrastructure more efficiently, and, over time, leading to more interesting walkable neighbourhoods. Yes, it would mean change, but not unreasonable, scary change.

We just have to have the will to do it, and not give into fear of the kind Bonnie Crombie was peddling on Twitter this week.

More highways and parking lots creates more flooding from rainstorms...

 

[wopchop]

Don't we need the development though? We are facing a housing shortage. Before you say density, keep in mind that not everyone wants that lifestyle, especially for a family. Other world class cities have much bigger footprints than Toronto.

Well, as others have mentioned, saying we need this land to solve the housing shortage and then proceeding to build single family low-rise housing that is proposed for that area is bit of a contradiction. However, if we are going to keep accommodating population growth, and if we build more of what we have always built, then we will have continuous sprawl to Kitchener, Guelph, Orangeville, and Barrie.

I believe the Federal government plans to bring 1,200,000 new immigrants to Canada over the next three years. Ontario generally receives 40-50% of new immigrants, and I believe Greater Toronto receives 70-75% of those.
92,000 new homes in this area is a drop in the bucket of what will be required over this decade to combat a housing shortage.
So no, I don't agree that this highway will solve the housing shortage if we develop all the land around it in that way.

I agree that certain housing choices are not for everyone. We don't build great (or enough) mid-rise or high-rise options for families, and that certainly limits people's choices.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well, as others have mentioned, saying we need this land to solve the housing shortage and then proceeding to build single family low-rise housing that is proposed for that area is bit of a contradiction. However, if we are going to keep accommodating population growth, and if we build more of what we have always built, then we will have continuous sprawl to Kitchener, Guelph, Orangeville, and Barrie.

I believe the Federal government plans to bring 1,200,000 new immigrants to Canada over the next three years. Ontario generally receives 40-50% of new immigrants, and I believe Greater Toronto receives 70-75% of those.
92,000 new homes in this area is a drop in the bucket of what will be required over this decade to combat a housing shortage.
So no, I don't agree that this highway will solve the housing shortage if we develop all the land around it in that way.

I agree that certain housing choices are not for everyone. We don't build great (or enough) mid-rise or high-rise options for families, and that certainly limits people's choices.

Restricted zoning has to be changed as well. Having mixed-use medium density is what is needed. Would like to be able to WALK to the corner store to buy a battery, for example, instead of wasting gasoline to go to a big box store to get it.

 

[ericmacm]

Well, as others have mentioned, saying we need this land to solve the housing shortage and then proceeding to build single family low-rise housing that is proposed for that area is bit of a contradiction. However, if we are going to keep accommodating population growth, and if we build more of what we have always built, then we will have continuous sprawl to Kitchener, Guelph, Orangeville, and Barrie.

I believe the Federal government plans to bring 1,200,000 new immigrants to Canada over the next three years. Ontario generally receives 40-50% of new immigrants, and I believe Greater Toronto receives 70-75% of those.
92,000 new homes in this area is a drop in the bucket of what will be required over this decade to combat a housing shortage.
So no, I don't agree that this highway will solve the housing shortage if we develop all the land around it in that way.

I agree that certain housing choices are not for everyone. We don't build great (or enough) mid-rise or high-rise options for families, and that certainly limits people's choices.

Is the highway really the problem here, though? The municipalities (Halton, Caledon, Brampton, Vaughan) are the ones drafting the plans and zoning for the construction of single-family homes in the area, not the province. Most municipalities that oppose the highway removed it from their zoning/official plans, and filled it in with more single-family housing, aside from the spots where industrial would be more appropriate. Brampton's "urban boulevard" proposal for the remainder of Heritage Heights contained mostly single-family housing. Yes, the highway is most certainly going to expedite the development process, but at the end of the day, it's the municipalities that control what gets built on their developable lands.

Getting rid of the highway is not going to solve the issue of municipalities mostly just zoning for low-density residential. They need to be held just as, if not more accountable than the province for how their lands are used. This, at least, will eventually change once the province starts implementing the recent recommendations from the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force and stepping over the zoning set by municipalities.

I believe efforts are much better spent fighting Halton, Caledon, Brampton, and Vaughan to densify their zoning in these remaining developable lands so their productivity can be maximized, instead of fighting the province for trying to get ahead of the curve on regional growth. Additionally, don't forget that the main justification for shelving the 413 in the 2010s was because population growth in Ontario was projected to slow down significantly, instead of accelerate to levels we now see.

 

[DirectionNorth]

After reviewing all the facts, I've decided to oppose all transit projects and support new freeway projects. More to come tomorrow to support my position.

 

[EnviroTO]

After reviewing all the facts, I've decided to oppose all transit projects and support new freeway projects. More to come tomorrow to support my position.

Will this include a YouTube video titled "Why Freeways are Better than Transit" complete with a thumbnail where you pose like "The Thinker" by Auguste Rodin?

Here is some material: Detroit has a lot of freeways in all directions, and clearly it has made Detroit the best city. Evidence: Detroit sport teams celebrating success because they got to practice faster leading to Stanley Cups in the last quarter century, held a Superbowl, Downtown Casino, a pizza style named after it, cultural significance "Motown", etc. Toronto is clearly a backwater because we have not kept up with freeway building. The most livable cities are always those with the most freeways.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Will this include a YouTube video titled "Why Freeways are Better than Transit" complete with a thumbnail where you pose like "The Thinker" by Auguste Rodin?

Here is some material: Detroit has a lot of freeways in all directions, and clearly it has made Detroit the best city. Evidence: Detroit sport teams celebrating success because they got to practice faster leading to Stanley Cups in the last quarter century, held a Superbowl, Downtown Casino, a pizza style named after it, cultural significance "Motown", etc. Toronto is clearly a backwater because we have not kept up with freeway building. The most livable cities are always those with the most freeways.

We'll see next April 1st, April Fool's Day.

 

[Student99]

People who want low density lifestyle have many existing low density neighborhoods to choose from.

??? There are none that I know of with decent vacancy ???
Highest demand is for single family homes. Condos less so. If we keep building density, okay yes sure you can fit more people, but that doesn't do away with the demand for single family homes, and will just raise prices of those even further.

 

[ARG1]

??? There are none that I know of with decent vacancy ???
Highest demand is for single family homes. Condos less so. If we keep building density, okay yes sure you can fit more people, but that doesn't do away with the demand for single family homes, and will just raise prices of those even further.

Correct. Building condos and lots of density is a good way to deal with the current cost issues where its virtually impossible to find any affordable housing anywhere within the GTA. However it doesn't solve the problem for those who want SFHs.

 

[afransen]

Correct. Building condos and lots of density is a good way to deal with the current cost issues where its virtually impossible to find any affordable housing anywhere within the GTA. However it doesn't solve the problem for those who want SFHs.

I question how much high rise condos can really address the affordability crisis. Condos take a lot of time and resources to construct. I think relaxing zoning rules in low density residential could have more of an impact in the medium run if it allows small developers to start building low-rise multi-unit residential in established neighbourhoods. Those types of projects can be completed in 2-3 years, whereas the condo pipeline takes almost a decade.

Maybe if there was more of a missing middle supply, the people who would prefer not to live in high rise condos would have options other than SFHs that would satisfy their needs without being quite so expensive.

 

[DirectionNorth]

??? There are none that I know of with decent vacancy ???
Highest demand is for single family homes. Condos less so. If we keep building density, okay yes sure you can fit more people, but that doesn't do away with the demand for single family homes, and will just raise prices of those even further.

Yep, because you can't raise a family in shoebox condos. The solution isn't to sprawl, but to build mid-rise housing where you can have reasonable living space.

Where's my mansion? I DESERVE THE MANSION I WANT, SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT!