[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Can they bury it Underground just in the area where the new downtown core is going to be. Or relocate the whole electrical grid just north on the moraine lands which can't be touched . Freeing up these parcels of lands for development in Durham,York and Peel Regions.

You'd have to ask some hydro expert; I've heard it discussed a few times and they are high tension lines, not those ones that cities sometimes bury along main streets. I think it is technically possible but not without spending a lot of money (probably from the developers but also passed on to taxpayesr) and then only if Hydro One is willing. I agree, you're unlocking tremendous value in the land, and that kind of gives you a sense of how hard/expensive it must be to bury them, if they aren't doing it.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

During the public meeting, linked above, this was raised. It was stated that there are a number of obstacles to burying the hydro lines, but the main one was that Hydro One would not agree. Apparently these lines serve most of the city, and the argument was that their response time if there is an issue is less than an hour for the lines held by pylons, but it is a range between 6 hours to days to access buried ones. Even if problems are rare, they do not want to bury these for operational reasons.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

During the public meeting, linked above, this was raised. It was stated that there are a number of obstacles to burying the hydro lines, but the main one was that Hydro One would not agree. Apparently these lines serve most of the city, and the argument was that their response time if there is an issue is less than an hour for the lines held by pylons, but it is a range between 6 hours to days to access buried ones. Even if problems are rare, they do not want to bury these for operational reasons.

As people who care about citybuilding, here - booo.

But as people who rely on electricity to do lots of stuff, I guess we have to defer to Hydro One on this, frustrating as it is.

 

[RichmondHillWilly]

As people who care about citybuilding, here - booo.

But as people who rely on electricity to do lots of stuff, I guess we have to defer to Hydro One on this, frustrating as it is.

I wish they’d do anything with this corridor. Can’t they make it a park/trail similar to the corridor just north of Finch?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I wish they’d do anything with this corridor. Can’t they make it a park/trail similar to the corridor just north of Finch?

It looks like the plan is to turn it into a big park, yeah.

 

[jcam]

Can they bury it Underground just in the area where the new downtown core is going to be. Or relocate the whole electrical grid just north on the moraine lands which can't be touched . Freeing up these parcels of lands for development in Durham,York and Peel Regions.

I worked on a tunneling machine for the London Olympics, where they buried a power corridor to free up space for the Olympic village. The article here notes they removed 52 pylons and replaced it with 6.5km of tunnels for a whopping 250 million GBP. But it can be done.

 

[Bjays92]

I also agree that there's nothing wrong with hyper density and keep sfh around elsewhere, but the fact that we're see 80s buildings proposed in Richmond hill is more of an indictment of the core's restrictive zoning policies than anything else.

 

[shammyjammy]

Can they bury it Underground just in the area where the new downtown core is going to be. Or relocate the whole electrical grid just north on the moraine lands which can't be touched . Freeing up these parcels of lands for development in Durham,York and Peel Regions.

At the meeting they said besides cost, a major factor when considering burying lines is response time for emergency repairs. In the present scenario, they can expect to detect issues and rectify them within 8 hours. Buried, it'll take much longer (48 hours I think?) because of difficult access. Which I think is a fair point.

 

[AlexStrangelove]

Created an account to comment on how eloquent TJ has been in the comments here, especially in the long post with the attached pictures.

I am all for building density in both the high tech and langstaff areas but I feel like there will be an abundance of 1 bedroom, 1 plus den type units in these buildings. Not exactly built for families. I also have reservations about the quality of the builds. Anyone want to comment or can add insight? Maybe I am a pessimist but it seems to me these TOCs are going to be developer cash grabs, with the promise of parkland as pacifier while more and more shoddy steel and glass eyesores are erected.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Thanks, Alex - All we've seen so far are concepts. These condos are being built in Richmond Hill, not downtown, so I'd guess there will be variety of unit types. Invididual building design is also pretty far off so who knows what they build quality will be. All we've seen so far is a singele building in Langstaff Gateway so time will tell. Having a single developer could cut either way in that regard, I guess. It might be another 5 years before we see the first actual building here and probably a good 10-20 before we have enough of them to really see the neighbourhood taking shape.

It's very early days - I think there's a lot to be encouraged by and a lot to be scepitcal about. It's fair to be pessismitic. I suppose, but as far as the actual evidence we have so far of how the community will really take shape, there isn't much.

 

[sixrings]

So I guess Torontonians are no longer meant to take the TTC based on how many buildings are proposed here and at VMC. I guess STC residents will be the winners after all.

 

[Mercenary]

Looks good to me. High Tech can serve as Richmond Hill's new Central Business District just as how Vaughan is developing its own CBD beside the Vaughan subway station.

If only Mississauga and Markham can get connected to the Subway line that will allow their downtowns to fully develop as well

 

[allengeorge]

Article by @AlexBozikovic in the Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-with-doug-fords-development-plans-for-toronto-suburbs-sometimes-big-is/

Points out that we have a very, very poor track record master-planning livable, well-designed communities of this scale in the GTA. (He also made a similar point about East Harbour.)

 

[Mr.Tang]

I thought his article was solid, and on point. We need more density - but built in a sustainable way and city building is hard to do quickly. There was separate editorial in the Globe on our housing crisis nationally - which I think is good as at it is starting to get more open minded discussion. At some point - we need more 3 bedroom plus housing for people wanting to raise kids. I have 2 kids - you can do it in a 2 bedroom condo - but it is pretty tough. We therefore need houses and townhomes and I dont think that necessarily equates to sprawl - but that is often how it is painted. Of course we want to densify existing neighborhoods - and should - but some expansion out seems necessary too.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I thought his article was solid, and on point. We need more density - but built in a sustainable way and city building is hard to do quickly. There was separate editorial in the Globe on our housing crisis nationally - which I think is good as at it is starting to get more open minded discussion. At some point - we need more 3 bedroom plus housing for people wanting to raise kids. I have 2 kids - you can do it in a 2 bedroom condo - but it is pretty tough. We therefore need houses and townhomes and I dont think that necessarily equates to sprawl - but that is often how it is painted. Of course we want to densify existing neighborhoods - and should - but some expansion out seems necessary too.

It's easy to do three-bedroom condos and midrises. We don't do it, because zoning is s*it and it's unprofitable in our real estate market, but it's do-able.