[steveintoronto]

I don't know who you're talking to, as I never gave an opinion as to regional transit. Try to follow along.

picard102 said: ↑
"Kicking up" Transit isn't an amalgamation issue, it's Old Toronto playing hardball with the region.

This has nothing to do with amalgamation.

[...]Toronto...residents blame the merger for our last crack-smoking mayor and our current comparatively dull one. They blame it for bad transit, and it’s hard to find defenders of the mega-city.

“It seems like after every election people blame the results on amalgamation especially if they don’t like the results,” said Lydia Miljan, co-author of a report set for release Tuesday by the Fraser Institute, titled “De-Amalgamation in Canada: Breaking up is hard to do.”
[...]

http://news.nationalpost.com/toront...-institute-says-yes-but-doesnt-mean-it-should
Okay, let's play your game Picard: Prove your point.

So again, what are the issues that Old Toronto is facing that has been stymied by amalgamation?
You've proven transit isn't one of them already, so let's not list that again.

There's many, Picard.

 

[animatronic]

To term the core a "CBD" unless you're Ozzy, is completely missing the point. The core of Toronto now has an urban density higher than ever before and growing. The services needed and those not (like cars and roads) are very different from the burbs. Since you use a term the Ozzies still use (it used to be used in planning in North Am but has lost it's 'mojo') Melbourne might be a good study. In the "CBD" in Melbourne, for instance, trams are free.

The point was that the old city enjoyed a massive cash influx from the business tax base of the CBD and the hundreds of thousands of commuting workers who spent money downtown. It's disingenuous at best to suggest that the old city existed as an island unto itself, since without the support of the neighbouring cities it wouldn't function.

Regardless, the whole idea of deamalgamation as a solution to anything is silly because these competing pressures would still exist - but with even less incentive to find a mutually acceptable solution.

 

[steveintoronto]

The point was that the old city enjoyed a massive cash influx from the business tax base of the CBD and the hundreds of thousands of commuting workers who spent money downtown. It's disingenuous at best to suggest that the old city existed as an island unto itself, since without the support of the neighbouring cities it wouldn't function.

Regardless, the whole idea of deamalgamation as a solution to anything is silly because these competing pressures would still exist - but with even less incentive to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Fair points, but allow me to elaborate on the term "Central Business District" and how that no longer applies to the core. Even though corporate and business HQs are once again locating in the core, Toronto is as advanced as any first world one in re-establishing itself as *a place to live*. And that is one of the massive differences to the burbs. Toronto is struggling to re-establish the core as a place to live without the need of motor vehicles, or even transit in some quadrants:

Wikipedia on CBDs (and I specifically choose the Oz section as Melbourne is Toronto's antipodes twin, and I'll be using for further discussion later:

[...]
Australia
The term is used to refer to the business and financial area of a state capital city such as the Sydney CBD, Melbourne CBD, Brisbane CBD, Perth CBD and Adelaide CBD. The city centres of some regional cities, such as Townsville, Bendigo and Newcastle may also be referred to as CBDs.

Historically, as in most Australian cities the CBD coincides with the city's historical and cultural centre, "CBD" was the preferred term for the city centre, to some extent used interchangeably with the term "City" or "city centre" when referring to such central areas. More recently, in many cities the "city centre", which may or may not be distinct from the CBD, is increasingly separately identified.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and these cities have a high-rise CBDs. Sydney Central Business District is one of the most well-known CBDs in Australia and forms an iconic image of Australia as it includes the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The CBD is the site of the largest concentration of companies in Australia.

Melbourne CBD is the second-largest in Australia. It hosts the headquarters of several large Australian companies. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district

Melbourne is not only the second largest "CBD" in Oz, it is considered by many international indices to be the *best world city in which to live*! (Toronto is a frequent third or fourth in many) That's not by coincidence, and the State of Victoria has a lot to do with it in terms of planning and forward thinking.

Here's why Melbourne, Australia, is the best place to live in the world
www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-live-in-melbourne-australia-2015-8
Aug 19, 2015 - Here's why Melbourne, Australia, is the best place to live in the world .... Victoria Market from 1878 — where many Melbournians flock on the ...

I'll detail more later.

 

[animatronic]

I'll detail more later.

Really - don't bother. Whatever point you're trying to make just isn't relevant.

 

[steveintoronto]

Really - don't bother. Whatever point you're trying to make just isn't relevant.

Indeed, not to you. It is to others. Have a nice day...

Here's the string title, note "amalgamate" or "de-amalgamate" is not in it.
Should the megacity stay or be broken up?

 

[Transportfan]

If de-amalgamation happens, the name of the restored federation shouldn't be Metropolitan Toronto, as that would make no sense with the GTA being the real Toronto metro area.

 

[steveintoronto]

If de-amalgamation happens, the name of the restored federation shouldn't be Metropolitan Toronto, as that would make no sense with the GTA being the real Toronto metro area.

It's a good point, albeit ostensibly the ex-suburbs of the now City of Toronto would have the option to choose their 'borough' names (City of North York, etc), the former City of Toronto revert to same, but the *over-riding regional name* could/would be "The Region of Toronto" or something other that denotes the super-region. Bear in mind that within this overarching 'upper tier' regional government, cities like Mississauga, Hamilton, Brampton and others would, along with the ex-City of Toronto boroughs, be much more balanced in terms of population.

The key is that this would remain a two-tiered system as Miss, Brampton, Oshawa and others are already in, but the 'super-region' would encompass the present regions and the now City of Toronto (ex Metro) in one governing body, and the smaller constituent munis would have local governance. How that is divided would be a good question.

Certainly the Hamilton model isn't one to copy.

 

[lead82]

The megacity should stay. There are improvements to be made for sure. One is to empower the local area councils and give the planning department full power to not only plan but to ensure development aligns to plans and the services like transit are built based on need rather than politics of the day. Also, the councillors need to be elected with a city wide scope and not just their local ward. We need to think about the greater city and prioritize projects based on maximum benefit. Also, Toronto has an obscenely long consultation process for public projects. Limit it to 6 months only and get on with the project design/build. We try to appease every one house along the path, creating huge cost burdens for the entire city.

 

[animatronic]

The megacity should stay. There are improvements to be made for sure. One is to empower the local area councils and give the planning department full power to not only plan but to ensure development aligns to plans and the services like transit are built based on need rather than politics of the day. Also, the councillors need to be elected with a city wide scope and not just their local ward. We need to think about the greater city and prioritize projects based on maximum benefit. Also, Toronto has an obscenely long consultation process for public projects. Limit it to 6 months only and get on with the project design/build. We try to appease every one house along the path, creating huge cost burdens for the entire city.

It doesn't help when a number of councillors have been in office since before the Berlin Wall fell.

 

[steveintoronto]

Also, the councillors need to be elected with a city wide scope and not just their local ward. We need to think about the greater city and prioritize projects based on maximum benefit.

That is the function of two-tiered government. something lost when Metro was amalgamated. That function would be restored again in a 'Super-Region', and that would be the venue for region-wide issues like trunk sewers, expressways, and the big one pressing right now: Transit. If Queen's Park does this right (and huge 'if') Metrolinx would also be 'devolved' (read 'downloaded' in a more cynical take) to this level of government. Some even think the Greater Horseshoe should be a province of its own. I'd agree with that, enthusiastically, but it would require Queen's Park agreeing (Phhhhh) and re-opening the Constitution. QP could still come up with legislation to create a semi-autonomous 'super-region' within the provincial envelope though.

Toronto has an obscenely long consultation process for public projects. Limit it to 6 months only and get on with the project design/build.

That's the OMB discussion, and you're absolutely right. If a muni doesn't respond to a developer's proposal within 365 days it goes to the Board...most often with unpleasant results for the local planners.

Correction: I thought the Bill had passed, but it is still 180 days, as you state:

Bill 144 2013

An Act to amend the Planning Act to extend certain timelines

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. Subsection 17 (40) of the Planning Act is amended by striking out “180 days” and substituting “365 days”.

2. Subsection 34 (11) of the Act is amended by striking out “120 days” in the portion before paragraph 1 and substituting “365 days”.

3. Subsection 45 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “thirty days” and substituting “90 days”.

Commencement

4. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

5. The short title of this Act is Planning Amendment Act (Extension of Timelines), 2013.


EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Bill extends certain timelines under the Planning Act.

Subsection 17 (40) of the Act currently provides for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the approval authority fails to give notice of a decision in respect of all or part of a plan within 180 days after receipt of the plan. The Bill extends the timeline to 365 days.

Subsection 34 (11) of the Act currently provides for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if council refuses an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under the section or a predecessor section, or refuses or neglects to make a decision on it within 120 days after receipt of the application. The Bill extends the timeline to 365 days.

Subsection 45 (4) of the Act currently requires the committee of adjustment to hold a hearing within 30 days after receipt of an application under subsection 45 (1). The Bill extends the timeline to 90 days.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2914

 

[picard102]

Okay, let's play your game Picard: Prove your point.

No, you've yet to provide an example, apart from transit which you detailed nothing that had to do with amalgamation.
Posting disjointed quotes and refusing to support your assertions, claiming you'll detail them later, isn't proving your point.

 

[steveintoronto]

No, you've yet to provide an example, apart from transit which you detailed nothing that had to do with amalgamation.
Posting disjointed quotes and refusing to support your assertions, claiming you'll detail them later, isn't proving your point.

How's that Ford running?

Sticky valves still?

31 Comments February 14, 2012 at 9:30 am
news
Poll Position: Toronto Split on Transit Options
Survey puts the lie to Rob Ford's claim that a majority of Torontonians back his transit vision.

By Hamutal Dotan

Yesterday, Toronto City Council voted 25 to 18 to reverse Mayor Rob Ford’s plan to focus transit spending on two new subways, and instead to put the money into building at least three above-ground light rail lines in different parts of the city. Given what you have seen, or read, or heard, do you think that City Council has made the right decision or the wrong decision?

Right decision: 43.2%

Wrong decision: 42.8%

Not sure: 14%

Right decision, by area—

Toronto-East York: 52.5%

Etobicoke: 39.7%

North York: 38%

Scarborough: 32.9%
[...]

http://torontoist.com/2012/02/poll-position-toronto-split-on-transit-options/

Guess what the latest is!

 

[W. K. Lis]

In 1793, the Town of York was founded, population between 3 and 600.

By 1834, it grew and became the City of Toronto, population over 9,252.

By 1953, the Municipality of Toronto was established, population over 1,176,622.

By 1998, the City of Toronto was amalgamated, population over 2,385,421.

By 2011, the population was over 2,615,060.

By 2016, we'll see the census numbers by February or March of 2017.

For your information.

 

[picard102]

Guess what the latest is!

And again, disjointed thoughts accompanied by links to nothing of value.

 

[steveintoronto]

In 1793, the Town of York was founded, population between 3 and 600.

By 1834, it grew and became the City of Toronto, population over 9,252.

By 1953, the Municipality of Toronto was established, population over 1,176,622.

By 1998, the City of Toronto was amalgamated, population over 2,385,421.

By 2011, the population was over 2,615,060.

By 2016, we'll see the census numbers by February or March of 2017.

For your information.

The UK did a study a number of years back on (gist) "what constitutes the optimal size for a city" in terms of population v efficacy of delivery of services. It was around a million. (This had direct bearing on the establishment of Bristol as a 'city-county' independent of the County of Somerset, then the new county of Avon, both of with which it had little in common. It has been reformed twice in the last half century) I'll see if I can find it and link.

Bristol is both a city and a county, since Edward III granted it a county charter in 1373.[21] The county was expanded in 1835 to include suburbs such as Clifton, and it was named a county borough in 1889 when that designation was introduced.[23] On 1 April 1974, Bristol became a local government district of the county of Avon.[96] The city regained its independence and county status on 1 April 1996, when Avon was abolished and Bristol became a unitary authority.[97]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol#cite_note-97
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol#Government

One has to ask: "What is the Megacity, is it the now City of Toronto or the entire Golden Horseshoe?"

Didn't find the one I'm looking for, but right along the same line, I'll dig for the actual study later: (I'm just reading this now, and lo and behold, Toronto is a big part of the story!)

What's the perfect size for a city?
The world’s cities are sprawling over their boundaries, fragmenting into smaller parts run by competing regional governments. But amalgamating them brings other problems ...
Thursday 23 April 2015 15.39 BST Last modified on Friday 11 November 2016 13.18 GMT
UK Guardian
[...]
A few year earlier, in 2010 and 800 miles to the north-east, Toronto elected the suburban politician Rob Ford from Etobicoke as mayor. Ford swept into office pledging to “stop the gravy train” and cut spending, cancelling bike infrastructure and streetcars. His sensibilities appalled urban Torontonians. The urban studies theorist Richard Florida called him “the worst and most anti-urban mayor in the history of any major city”. His mayoralty ultimately collapsed in a wave of scandals, including when he got caught on video smoking crack.

One of the factors blamed for the Rob Ford phenomenon? Amalgamation, or the consolidation of the city of Toronto with several formerly independent municipalities, including Etobicoke. It is amalgamation that allowed suburbanites to take control of governance over the inner city by electing one of their own as mayor.

Welcome to the wonderful world of governing urban regions, where between fragmentation and amalgamation no one actually knows what the right-sized box for local government is or how to change it – but everyone can see the problems of most of the existing governance models.

Municipal fragmentation has been criticised for decades. In Cities Without Suburbs, his influential 1993 book, former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk argued that Rust Belt cities in the US failed to succeed in part because they were unable to expand, and found themselves hemmed in by a jigsaw puzzle of independent suburbs.

But with cities having become central to national governance in the 21st century, institutions like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank are weighing in, too. Both recently sounded the alarm about the risks of urban fragmentation on a global level, for the developed and the developing world.

“Often, administrative boundaries between municipalities are based on centuries-old borders that do not correspond to contemporary patterns of human settlement and economic activity,” the OECD observed in a recent report. The thinktank argued that governance structures failed to reflect modern realities of metropolitan life into account.
[...]
And as the Toronto example shows, amalgamation – bringing fragmented government regions together – comes with downsides of its own. Of course, you can put people in the same governmental box, but that won’t necessarily create common ground – instead, it can create a zero-sum, winner-takes-all dynamic.
People in living in cities and those in their suburbs often have different values, priorities and even a different culture. They can be, as was famously said of English and French Canada, “two solitudes”. Urbanites who support regional governance frequently assume that means more power, money and resources for the central city. But as Rob Ford so richly illustrated, that’s not always the case.
[...continues at length discussing regional governance...]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/23/sane-way-run-megalopolis-urban-governance
Cities is supported by About this content
Aaron M Renn