[UD2]

It's a semi-vacant industrial wasteland, so it does have little impact. But what will it be in 50 years? What if it's a dense urban area with a pedestrian walkway to near where Leslie station would be?

I mentioned the intersection simply in having a discussion about how the area could change in 50 years. Surely anyone who frequents the area is well familiar with that intersection, as it's the back-up way to get from Leslie to Thorncliffe when there Don Mills Road trouble (Leslie to Brentcliffe to Vanderhoof to Leslie to Wickstead to Beth Nealson to Overlea). But as often is the case, the "experts" don't frequent the area often enough to actually know the area properly.

If Toronto takes the same stance on its employment areas as Markham (and I hope it does), this area will likely remain industrial for decades to come. A bus services to nearby station would be much more effective and economical.
Even if the area gets developed, this station will be at least 250 meters beyond the edge of any potential activity area. Which means people living further south would be taking a bus to Laird anyways.

 

[ssiguy2]

Miller had wet dreams about turning the Golden Mile, Jane/Finch, and Sheppard thru Scarberia as some bohemian wonderland.
For all his fuzzy talk it exemplifies a shocking lack of urban planning.

The reality is that areas like the Golden Mile are just as much part of the urban fabric as are The Beaches, Yorkville, or Kensington Market. Cities don't just run on shops and restaurants and commercial and industrial development are just as vital to a city's properity and liveability as are those interesting neighbourhoods. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Parisiens do not buy their cars along the Left Bank and don't gas them at the back of a cafe. The kids don't go to school over looking the Seine, not all their parents work in a pastry shop, and people don't go to The Louvre to buy their furniture.

It is esseential for a city to have these commercial areas not only for their economic vitality but even for their transportation systems. If every square foot of a city is turned over to residential development you get the horrific transportation problem that Vancouver has found itself in.........reverse commuting.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

Contrary to Miller's understanding, Parisiens do not buy their cars along the Left Bank and don't gas them at the back of a cafe. The kids don't go to school over looking the Seine, not all their parents work in a pastry shop, and people don't go to The Louvre to buy their furniture.

If you literally think there are no schools or gas stations or furniture stores in central Paris then I think it might be you who doesn't understand how cities work.

 

[Wrenkin]

If you literally think there are no schools or gas stations or furniture stores in central Paris then I think it might be you who doesn't understand how cities work.

I believe there are actually car showrooms on the Champs Elysees. They just don't keep the stock on site. Same thing in London, where there are high-end dealerships facing Hyde Park.

 

[timio]

If you literally think there are no schools or gas stations or furniture stores in central Paris then I think it might be you who doesn't understand how cities work.

If I remember correctly, I remember seeing a gas station built into the first floor of a building along Metro Line 6 near the Eiffel Tower when I was there a few years back.

 

[ssiguy2]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial. Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life. Trying to turn those vibrant com/ind areas into residential lands is both foolhardy and shortsighted. This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

 

[nfitz]

Am I missing something? The Golden Mile is just car dealerships isn't it? These can go in large building, just like along King Street. Seems to be lots of new car dealerships along streetcar lines in condo buildings.

 

[11th]

If I remember correctly, I remember seeing a gas station built into the first floor of a building along Metro Line 6 near the Eiffel Tower when I was there a few years back.

They actually do this a lot in other urban areas. Maybe there're regulations preventing that from being built in Toronto (or Canada).

 

[Platform 27]

I always thought that the south-of-the road option is the best solution for this stretch, and was surprised when they decided to just tunnel all the way to Don Mills.

However, is it possible that they know something that we don't know? The cost of two portals, the bridge over West Don, and the CPR underpass actually exceeding the cost of continuous tunneling?

I was at the meeting, and they said that they found that building the originally-planned TBM launch shaft at that portal location near Brentcliffe would have been next to impossible. An alternative that would have kept a portal there would have been if they drove the TBMs in the opposite direction and built an extraction shaft at the site instead (they're smaller) but that meant a launch shaft back at Bayview, which they also investigated only to discover it would have been pretty difficult too.

Basically, south side surface running in that area was off the table because it didn't solve the problem they set out to fix, namely getting rid of that tunnel portal.

 

[allabootmatt]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial. Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life. Trying to turn those vibrant com/ind areas into residential lands is both foolhardy and shortsighted. This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

And on the Paris example, it is fair to point out that the 'Region Parisienne' contains a vast amount of pretty unattractive suburban wasteland, which is nonetheless crucial to the French economy. But yes, there are certainly gas stattions and the like in central Paris, just adapted to the landscape.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If I remember correctly, I remember seeing a gas station built into the first floor of a building along Metro Line 6 near the Eiffel Tower when I was there a few years back.

We don't see gas stations built into the first floor of building nowadays, for the same reason we no longer see curbside gas pumps. Fire hazard.

Dundas near Brock.

 

[BurlOak]

I was at the meeting, and they said that they found that building the originally-planned TBM launch shaft at that portal location near Brentcliffe would have been next to impossible. An alternative that would have kept a portal there would have been if they drove the TBMs in the opposite direction and built an extraction shaft at the site instead (they're smaller) but that meant a launch shaft back at Bayview, which they also investigated only to discover it would have been pretty difficult too.

Basically, south side surface running in that area was off the table because it didn't solve the problem they set out to fix, namely getting rid of that tunnel portal.

I am a bit confused with this post. The second paragraph says the problem to solve is to get rid of the tunnel portal. The only way to achieve this is to continue the tunnel. I would have thought the goal would be to find the overall solution, from Laird to Don Mills, that has the lowest cost.

From the first paragraph, it is not clear whether a south side alignment was considered by Metrolinx, or whether they wanted the LRT in the median. With a portal in the median, the launch site would be to the south, but extensive decking would be required for Eglinton to pass over the access to the actual TBMs, and extra space is needed to allow the equipment and extraction process to make the 90 degree turn to the staging area. If the portal was on the south side, there would be no disruption to the Eglinton traffic, and presumably the TBMs could be in a pit about 50m by 20m (about the size of the TBM pit at Keelesdale) on the south side, and the staging area would be to the east. It may be possible to have in access from Vanderhoof and out access to Eglinton. I do not recall the production rate of these TBMs (50m per week?), but I am think it is probably close to 20 to 30 dump truck per day, not per hour.

I would guess that there are many excuses here and they are probably just chosing the option with the lowest design cost, and not the one with the lowest construction cost.

 

[EnviroTO]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

Commercial and industrial properties are just as important as residential properties. I don't know why the existence of those properties would require ugly streets and ugly people to make them viable.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial.

There is no heavy industrial on Eglinton, the plant at Pharmacy was the last one which even came close to being considered more than light industry. On Eglinton it is primarily big box retail, a mall, very low density office space, and light industrial (warehousing, data center, etc). The two largest light industrial properties have high-rise residential across the street on Birchmount. The amount of land dedicated to retail and parking lots for that retail is something like 7 times the amount the Eaton Centre uses and the basic reality is that people shop in retail, and people work in offices, retail, and light industrial properties so I'm not sure why there can't be more residential use in the Golden Mile. They are building condos next to Redpath and that is a far more industrial use property than the light industrial properties on the Golden Mile.

Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life.

The Golden Mile is mainly big box retail. The low wages paid in big box stores.... wait for it.... decreases the quality of life. Not having residential properties located near the businesses in the Golden Mile takes away potential customers and for workers creates a commute which.... wait for it.... decreases the quality of life.

This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

Industrial use doesn't lend itself to density or transit. If the Golden Mile is really to be industrial then it is quite pointless running transit through the area at anything other than ground level and really the need for much beyond a bus route would be unlikely. Industrial doesn't lend itself to transit well due to larger factories being highly automated (low density in terms of numbers of workers), and light industrial tends to have a large delivery component which is not replaced by transit. If the office or retail components of the Golden Mile are looked at then intensification of only a slight amount still leaves land that could be used for residential. Is there any benefit to a 2 storey office building over a 12 storey residential building and a 6 storey office building, or a huge parking lot over a parking garage and two 12 storey residential buildings? There isn't. When there isn't heavy industry, noisy industry, or smelly industry, then there is no point it not allowing mixed use. The market can decide if it makes sense to build a residential building or a warehouse.

 

[Solid Snake]

But what if there was 50,000 people living in the Leslie/Wickstead area in 50 years - the area is ripe for redevelopment.

Then they'll just add it by cut and cover when density will justify having a station there...otherwise you end up with stations like Bessarion

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

 

[nfitz]

Then they'll just add it by cut and cover when density will justify having a station there...otherwise you end up with stations like Bessarion

Normally I agree, but in this case Metrolinx is saying that adding an intermediate station woudl require a 2-year closure of the line. Hence my position that if Metrolinx is correct about the requirement of a 2-year closure, that perhaps they should rough something in now.

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

Elevate the rest of the 33 km line because the 13 km section in the middle with the highest ridership is in a tunnel? That sounds like overkill. Grade-separating a 20-km LRT unnecessarily will take a lot of money away from other essential projects such as the Downtown Relief Line, the Yonge Extension, etc.