[ARG1]

Your desire to rip down houses in the name of density and gentrification is a nice way to say move the minorities out.

I too get a nose bleed north of bloor.

Oh boohoo, woe are the ultra wealthy that live in Rosedale and Yorkville. They have nowhere to go and are SO marginalized by the rest of the city who want to (gasp) grow and evolve. Extra woe are the wealthy who live in Leslieville who (gasp) have to see poor people riding trains in their backyards! Oh the humanity...

 

[sixrings]

Oh boohoo, woe are the ultra wealthy that live in Rosedale and Yorkville. They have nowhere to go and are SO marginalized by the rest of the city who want to (gasp) grow and evolve. Extra woe are the wealthy who live in Leslieville who (gasp) have to see poor people riding trains in their backyards! Oh the humanity...

My real point was that these century houses along the Bloor and danforth are never in fear of being ripped down. We use words like character to hide the fact what we mean is that they are owned by white people. But we start to build subways in the suburbs, to finally serve transit to the people who have been neglected for years, and suddenly every house is expected to have a target on it.

Here minority person. We’re finally giving you transit. Unfortunately there is this word we are going to use. Perhaps you don’t know it. Gentrification. It is when you are going to have to move so that we can build condos that you will no longer be able to afford to live in. But think of the good you are doing for the city making it more dense.

 

[ARG1]

My real point was that these century houses along the Bloor and danforth are never in fear of being ripped down. We use words like character to hide the fact what we mean is that they are owned by white people. But we start to build subways in the suburbs, to finally serve transit to the people who have been neglected for years, and suddenly every house is expected to have a target on it.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here. People have absolutely been pushing to finally densify the areas around the existing subway lines.

 

[T3G]

Here minority person. We’re finally giving you transit. Unfortunately there is this word we are going to use. Perhaps you don’t know it. Gentrification. It is when you are going to have to move so that we can build condos that you will no longer be able to afford to live in. But think of the good you are doing for the city making it more dense.

What in particular did you expect? That Scarborough's lack of density would persist even after expansion of their subway network?

 

[sixrings]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here. People have absolutely been pushing to finally densify the areas around the existing subway lines.

This is true. But the white NIMBYs seem to be supported. But then in threads like this it is over and over if we build it you better damn well be ok with 1km radius density. If we applied that to the core we would be ripping out rosedale, leslieville, cabbagetown, yorkville, the annex, bloor west. Yet never do any of those names ever get brought up.

 

[sixrings]

What in particular did you expect? That Scarborough's lack of density would persist even after expansion of their subway network?

I think what I am saying is, instead of making huge plans to justify a subway by building a million 50 floor condos in the suburbs and then displacing a whole bunch of people. Why don’t we just force all the condominium construction down into the core so there’s more housing with the ability to walk to work and amenities.

 

[carlosdanger]

I think what I am saying is, instead of making huge plans to justify a subway by building a million 50 floor condos in the suburbs. Why don’t we just force all the condominium construction down into the core so there’s more housing with the ability to walk to work and amenities.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, and I do not want to discuss in bad faith, but the places downtown are wealthier and more powerful. The places that have low density downtown are because of this power. No doubt there has been an effort, but I assume building density in working class and middle class areas are easier than wealthy areas.

I think density should be built in both the core and the suburbs.

I'd like if Toronto could build more sub-cores so that people could commute to places other than just downtown. Easier said than done.

 

[sixrings]

Maybe I am misunderstanding, and I do not want to discuss in bad faith, but the places downtown are wealthier and more powerful. The places that have low density downtown are because of this power. No doubt there has been an effort, but I assume building density in working class and middle class areas are easier than wealthy areas.

I think density should be built in both the core and the suburbs.

I'd like if Toronto could build more sub-cores so that people could commute to places other than just downtown. Easier said than done.

You are hearing me correctly. I am frustrated how casually we say these whole areas should change while the areas which could be densities more and already have the amenities are using every nimby trick in the playbook to remain exactly the way they are but forcing change elsewhere. By the way this only increases the value of these properties. Fifth avenue wasn’t always buildings but they managed to convert that. Surely they can do more downtown but the willpower isn’t there. Instead we would rather spend billions on a subway to build places which will put up less a fight. That seems bizarre to me.

 

[Jaye101]

This is quite the passionate conversation about racism and how communities are torn apart through city planning and gentrification. And if this conversation were to happen anywhere I understand why it would be Sheppard East.

As someone who grew up in Malvern, I think the rest of the city, most of which never take the time to even come to Scarborough, truly underestimate how many people are taking transit in Scarborough. Even in the early 2000's it was common place to see 30+ people waiting for the 116 Morningside southbound at Sheppard during AM peak at 7 min frequencies. The 116 Morningside in East Scarborough carries about as much people as Hurontario in Mississauga and it's far from Scarborough's busiest route. Even more important to remember that the RT that Line 2 extension is replacing has been operating over capacity during rush for almost 2 decades. The only reason transit ridership in Scarborough isn't higher is a lack of capacity. Because of the suburban environment people tend to stay on transit for longer distances and so the turnover of passengers over the length of any route is much less.

The idea that Scarborough in and of itself isn't deserving of transit investment is racist. It's similar to the fight Weston had to put up to get a stop on the UPX. Weston is a dense neighbourhood that would respond very well to additional heavy rail service but somehow it was seen as undeserving, I wonder why.

Regardless, I am happy transit investment is coming to Scarborough. I am happy Scarborough is getting a medical school. I do think we need to be cognizant of how we build our city and what is motivating our collective decision making. I do think many minority families who own homes in Scarborough will benefit from their increased property values, and the ability to build additional buildings on their lot as per the city's new as of right rules for garden suites and laneway homes.

I do think provisions need to be in place at the direction of local residents to keep these communities intact and to ensure that these investments result in increased access to opportunity rather than displacement.

 

[Rainforest]

Very few old houses cannot be replaced because they are declared heritage. In the vast majority of cases, the zoning bylaws are the obstacle for multi-storey construction near subway stations; not the heritage designations.

 

[Rainforest]

how's about this half-baked idea? use Sheppard to branch/interline both Line 1 & 2.

View attachment 459450

This is a good map, however there could be some technical challenges.

1) Line 1 north of Sheppard West runs in a tunnel; adding the wyes there is not a simple matter.

2) When two subway lines converge, it is often preferred that they have separate platforms for trains arriving from each branch. They merge after the station. That kind of design reduces the risk of high-speed collisions, as the operators see the other train at the station. I don't know if this is a requirement, or just a preference. Maybe, modern train control systems do not really need this design.

The easiest connection will be from the Sheppard line to Line 1 south of Sheppard. As the tracks are at-grade between Sheppard West and Wilson, connecting more tracks should not be too difficult. If desired, it should be possible to add a 3-rd track with a platform at Wilson Stn.

 

[carlosdanger]

You are hearing me correctly. I am frustrated how casually we say these whole areas should change while the areas which could be densities more and already have the amenities are using every nimby trick in the playbook to remain exactly the way they are but forcing change elsewhere. By the way this only increases the value of these properties. Fifth avenue wasn’t always buildings but they managed to convert that. Surely they can do more downtown but the willpower isn’t there. Instead we would rather spend billions on a subway to build places which will put up less a fight. That seems bizarre to me.

Very few old houses cannot be replaced because they are declared heritage. In the vast majority of cases, the zoning bylaws are the obstacle for multi-storey construction near subway stations; not the heritage designations.

You could be completely correct.

I think NIMBYs are many things, and one of those things is shrewd. They know that classifying something as heritage means its replacement will be viewed as destroying heritage and putting up yet another barrier to improving the affordability of the city. Even if heritage classification is a watered-down classification.

I fear those who are least affected by affordability concerns are more/most likely to live in heritage designated areas.

 

[W. K. Lis]

You could be completely correct.

I think NIMBYs are many things, and one of those things is shrewd. They know that classifying something as heritage means its replacement will be viewed as destroying heritage and putting up yet another barrier to improving the affordability of the city. Even if heritage classification is a watered-down classification.

I fear those who are least affected by affordability concerns are more/most likely to live in heritage designated areas.

Example...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630712943846326273

 

[nfitz]

Since we are taking bout intensification, perhaps we should also apply the same test to the Danforth corridor where there is already a subway. Or all along the Ontario line east of the DVP.

Unless there is a rule that says this should only apply to areas with high concentrations of visible minority and immigrants.

I don't think it's anything to do with visible minority and immigrants. It's about much more difficult to put together blocks of land along Danforth, because of all the very narrow and relatively shallow lots. There's certainly been a lot of development recently where larger lots already existed, such as commercial and industrial areas. Look at all the stuff going in around Main station south of Danforth!

The houses on... Danforth and Bloor in Toronto? No. Especially not on a subway line during a housing crisis.

I don't think the houses are the issue - especially as there are not many of them, at least on the main strip itself. It's the retai.

 

[Undead]

I fear those who are least affected by affordability concerns are more/most likely to live in heritage designated areas.

Funny enough many activists hail from pretty comfortable backgrounds as well.