[egotrippin]

In my eyes, neighbourhood design was just about perfected 100~ years ago; neighbourhoods like Queen West, Roncesvalles, etc. A mixture of housing types radiating out from a dense, vibrant commercial strip. We probably need a bit less SFH and more multi-unit residential, the missing middle so to speak, but the reality is many people don't want to live in an apartment type building. Developments like this one proposed suck, don't get me wrong, we should be able to emulate that pre-war neighbourhood built form- the template exists all over Ontario.

 

[cd concept]

Sure. If the choice is between the Goldenhorsehoe growing by 5M people and sacrificing the Greenbelt, I have no problem saying no the people.

I don't think the choice is actually quite than binary, but if it must be, so be it.

I know that Lenser and you mean well. But you shouldn't react too critically to my point of view. You probably live in city core area and want everyone to live the same way. But comparing other metro areas in the Great Lakes. For a combined statistical area of about 10 million in the Greater Golden Horseshoe today. We have an urban foot print the size of Detroit's and even Cleveland combined statistical areas 3 to 5 million . When we should be looking like Chicagoland's of close to 10 million on Google Earth. I really think this is an overkill in cramming people together in area. There's a fine balance to this madness. And I think the governments are doing their best to meet the demands of the future in many aspects lol! You can't just be one sided take a look at Google Earth to see how compact our subdivisions have become to save land.

 

[Lenser]

Ummmm.... I know you mean well but you're responding to Northern Light rather than myself. I don't want everyone to live the same way I do - please provide evidence that I have been advocating for that. Don't sweat it; I'll wait. And you still haven't explained why sprawl is inevitable, that we simply have no other options other than pave over the green belt and any farm land that we deem fit.

 

[Northern Light]

To say nothing of how Canada requires immigration as it's one of many Western countries whose population is rapidly aging while family sizes are dropping - the country is therefore exposed to the negative economic repercussions of that trend.

Uhh, the population is aging, that's true; though not nearly as much as people seem to think.

First off, lets look at where we are on a global scale.

As at 2020, Canada's median age was 41.8, ranking us as the 41st oldest country in the world, so we're not that grey, LOL

List of countries by median age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, the current stats. can projections show the median age growing from the above to ~45 by 2068.

The Daily — Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2021 to 2068, 2022

From 2016 to 2021, Canada's population grew at almost twice the pace of every other G7 country. While the pace of growth slowed in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic, it rose again in 2021 and, from January to March 2022, it was the highest of all first quarters since 1990.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

A shift of only 4 years over 47 years.

Important to keep in mind that to a near certainty, retirement age will be bumped to 70 soon. When that occurs, most of the 'age' penalty around labour force and income tax generation goes away.

***

Also important to add, a shrinking population (should that occur) would depress housing prices, and rents, making it more affordable for people to have larger families and then then the cycle shifts.

One of the reasons for 'aging' is smaller families, one of the chief reasons for those is skyrocketing real estate prices that result from large-scale immigration.

 

[Lenser]

Thank for the clarification, Northern Light. Still, Canadian families are a long way off from the average size they were in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Without taking into account the positive bump by immigration, the replacement work force is shrinking. I'm simply trying to make an argument for immigration as opposed to giving into the fallacy that, if wish to avoid sprawl, we need to stop immigration altogether.

 

[cd concept]

In my eyes, neighbourhood design was just about perfected 100~ years ago; neighbourhoods like Queen West, Roncesvalles, etc. A mixture of housing types radiating out from a dense, vibrant commercial strip. We probably need a bit less SFH and more multi-unit residential, the missing middle so to speak, but the reality is many people don't want to live in an apartment type building. Developments like this one proposed suck, don't get me wrong, we should be able to emulate that pre-war neighbourhood built form- the template exists all over Ontario.

Don't those 1920s niebourhood sometimes have driveways on the side of their homes with garages in the back? At least there was a driveway buffering between homes which we don't even do today. Putting the garage in front or underneath the home loosing a front lawn etc! As for the missing middle we're not as old as USA's north eastern metro areas from Boston to Washington and Montreal etc. That were more astablished in the late 1700s to 1800 to create European style low and mid rise condo homes. New York City already had over three million around the year of 1900. Toronto was just starting out to become a major city at the time. And had a different varieties of Victorian buildings etc and maybe a good portion of midrises that were torn down or burnt in the major fires Toronto had.

 

[Northern Light]

I know that Lenser and you mean well. But you shouldn't react too critically to my point of view. You probably live in city core area and want everyone to live the same way.

What a phenomenal presumption. I live several km outside downtown, and I have nothing against people's desire to own a home; it's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of consequence.

Destroying the very best farmland on the planet will give you people who can't eat, and whose food, when they get it, is less fresh and more expensive.

Destroying what little remains of true nature in southern Ontario means more pollution, more extinction/extirpation of species, and less recreational opportunity.

There simply is not the available land to live the way you want, period. Your desire is fine, but reality forces you to forego it.

But comparing other metro areas in the Great Lakes. For a combined statistical area of about 10 million in the Greater Golden Horseshoe today. We have an urban foot print the size of Detroit's and even Cleveland combined statistical areas 3 to 5 million . When we should be looking like Chicagoland's of close to 10 million on Google Earth. I really think this is an overkill in cramming people together in area.

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is almost the exact same size as Chicagoland. Let's start there.

Second, Chicagoland also still includes a fair bit of farmland, though far less nature than the GGH.

Third, Chicagoland is not desirable. The commutes are long, areas of the innercity (southside) are nearly abandoned and high crime, while much of the area is an unwalkable.

Chicago has some very nice areas, but the Chicagoland area is nothing to emulate.

 

[cd concept]

What a phenomenal presumption. I live several km outside downtown, and I have nothing against people's desire to own a home; it's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of consequence.

Destroying the very best farmland on the planet will give you people who can't eat, and whose food, when they get it, is less fresh and more expensive.

Destroying what little remains of true nature in southern Ontario means more pollution, more extinction/extirpation of species, and less recreational opportunity.

There simply is not the available land to live the way you want, period. Your desire is fine, but reality forces you to forego it.



The Greater Golden Horseshoe is almost the exact same size as Chicagoland. Let's start there.

Second, Chicagoland also still includes a fair bit of farmland, though far less nature than the GGH.

Third, Chicagoland is not desirable. The commutes are long, areas of the innercity (southside) are nearly abandoned and high crime, while much of the area is an unwalkable.

Chicago has some very nice areas, but the Chicagoland area is nothing to emulate.

Toronto urban sprawl to would have already been filled out to Simcoe County. If its urban footprint was about the same as Chicagoland as seen in the night photo below. And by the way Chicagoland boundaries go as far as into Wisconsin and Indiana. And almost halfway to the western border of Illinois of about 28000 km. Zoom in on Google Earth and you'll see that's there are subdivisions in bedded in the green forest area etc. Same for Detroit and Cleveland metro areas. Which grew in the early to mid 20th century. Now urban sprawling is an issue not then because of climate change etc. And we're doing alright today in balancing to save the lack of good farm land we have in southern Ontario being lean on land consumption as you can see. If the land is so fertile to be one of the best in the world. Why aren't we growing only a certain variety of food on it instead of corn, wheat, soy. If it's like Niagara on the Lake then we're talking fertile then I'll understand lol!

 

[Northern Light]

Toronto urban sprawl to would have already been filled out to Simcoe County. If its urban footprint was about the same as Chicagoland. And by the way Chicagoland boundaries go as far as into Wisconsin and Indiana. And almost halfway to the western border of Illinois of about 28000 km. Zoom in on Google Earth and you'll see that's there are subdivisions in bedded in the green forest area etc. Same for Detroit and Cleveland metro areas. Which grew in the early to mid 20th century. Now urban sprawling is an issue not then because of climate change etc. And we're doing alright today in balancing to save the lack of good farm land we have in southern Ontario being lean on land consumption. If the land is so fertile to be one of the best in the world. Why aren't we growing only a certain variety of food on it instead of corn, wheat, soy. If it's like Niagara on the Lake then we're talking fertile then I'll understand lol!

With great respect, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm beginning to find that quite exhausting.

 

[cd concept]

With great respect, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm beginning to find that quite exhausting.

I'm talking about urban sprawl which is going to happen. And like it or not I think we're doing a good job managing the sprawl by redeveloping old areas than eating up farm land etc while welcoming alot of newcomers in this area. I thought you would understand that take care anyway!

 

[Towered]

I'm talking about urban sprawl which is going to happen. And like it or not I think we're doing a good job managing the sprawl by redeveloping old areas than eating up farm land etc while welcoming alot of newcomers in this area. I thought you would understand that take care anyway!

Urban sprawl does not have to happen. That's the point people here keep trying to tell you.

 

[Lenser]

"Redeveloping old areas?"

 

[cd concept]

Urban sprawl does not have to happen. That's the point people here keep trying to tell you.

All you people must be cut from the same cloth. I'm not the one in charge of this situation. I'm just telling you that's the way it is not everyone wants to live in condos. The government have set aside land to be in the distant future to meet the consumers demands. Jennifer keesmaat is one person that could explain the situation clearly in one of her old meetings about this when she was in charge. Don't get mad at me!

 

[LemonCondo]

 

[Northern Light]

All you people must be cut from the same cloth. I'm not the one in charge of this situation. I'm just telling you that's the way it is not everyone wants to live in condos.

No one is disagreeing with you on this point.

What you keep missing is the distinction between want and fulfillment.

You may want to own a Lambo, but if your budget doesn't allow for it, then you don't get to have one.

You may want to date some hollywood actress whose appearance attracts you; but you don't know her, or her family/friends or agent, so you don't even get to ask her out, let alone get a yes.

Simply wanting does not make something so.

In this context fulfilling that want (sprawl) is irresponsible, and unethical. Self-discipline is in order.

Moreover, do you expect people to commute from Owen Sound to Toronto every day? Or even to K-W? There simply isn't the employment opportunity out there (yet); and the commute isn't just bad for the environment and requiring vast subsidies in infrastructure (and therefore higher taxes) it's also taxing on family and leisure time to commute 60, 70 or 80 minutes each way.

The trade-offs are not reasonable.

Ultimately, if you're not rich, or upper-middle-class and you want an SFH lifestyle, you will have to choose an area to live other than the GTA or Metro Vancouver. Those two markets in Canada simply won't sustain it.

The government have set aside land to be in the distant future to meet the consumers demands. Jennifer keesmaat is one person that could explain the situation clearly in one of her old meetings about this when she was in charge. Don't get mad at me!

The government has not set aside any vast reserve of public land for development, they have permitted 'white belt' lands to develop. I would argue too much of that, and would like to see some of that reversed (downzoned) but I digress. There is no 'plan' for unending sprawl, merely a provincial government that's marginally indifferent, at least where its 'friends' are involved.