In his speech, Ford held up the cities of Vaughan and Pickering in the Greater Toronto Area as examples. According to the premier, those cities are on track to exceed their housing targets by 150 per cent and 140 percent, respectively, which would entitle Pickering to more than $5 million in new funding and Vaughan to more than $17 million.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-municipalities-association-meeting-1.6942488

Markham is definitely going to want in on this.
 
Sunnyside said:
Theres no way... Where’d you hear that?
Click to expand...

This was some hyperbole from the local residents, comparing some areas to like the slums of India. It's not quite that.
(Density expands exponentially if you shrink the footprint of what you are looking at and I think they did some of that - but they are very dense.)
 
Cyber98 said:
It's very insane, apparently this area will be the second densest area in the world right after an area in Hong Kong once everything is built.
Click to expand...
Don't believe everything you hear from NIMBY resident groups. This is still terrible, as proposed, though (it won't be built as currently envisioned, so don't worry). The cheapest, shittiest, real estate profiteering. Nothing more.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Don't believe everything you hear from NIMBY resident groups. This is still terrible, as proposed, though (it won't be built as currently envisioned, so don't worry). The cheapest, shittiest, real estate profiteering. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yes - just to remind everyone that several things can be true:
-these areas are very dense but not as dense as Asian slums but still much denser than the municipalities were targeting
-these graphics are glorified massing models showing the approved heights/blocks etc. but they are not architecture/design of actual buildings (Excepting what we have seen for the first 2-tower development)
-once it is all built, 30+ years from now, it likely won't look anything like those renderings
-whether the final community is better/worse than those graphics remains to be seen
 
Sunnyside said:
Theres no way... Where’d you hear that?
Click to expand...
ProjectEnd said:
Don't believe everything you hear from NIMBY resident groups. This is still terrible, as proposed, though (it won't be built as currently envisioned, so don't worry). The cheapest, shittiest, real estate profiteering. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yea it was all speculation, I remember seeing a few articles talking about it but this is what I was able to find. Now that i'm looking back on it, I first thought it was some in depth analysis determining the whole density thing but I just realized it was a bunch of NIMBYS complaining.
 
The Langstaff site south of the 407 is planned for about 20-22,000 units over roughly 85-90 acres (going by memory and Google Maps).

That works out to about 250 units per acre which is average density for the region in recent years--a 25 storey tower on a 1 acre plot. In fact, this is actually a fair bit lower than many downtown sites (300-400 units per acre).

It's more the size of the site and proposed building heights.
 
Undead said:
The Langstaff site south of the 407 is planned for about 20-22,000 units over roughly 85-90 acres (going by memory and Google Maps).

That works out to about 250 units per acre which is average density for the region in recent years--a 25 storey tower on a 1 acre plot. In fact, this is actually a fair bit lower than many downtown sites (300-400 units per acre).

It's more the size of the site and proposed building heights.
Click to expand...

If I can shift to metric, the Growth Plan minimum is 400 people + jobs per hectare.
Langstaff is 47 hectares.
20,000 housing units = roughly 35,000 residents.
And that's only about 60% of the full area from Bayview to Yonge. So probably we're talking about 50,000 residents, give or take, in the whole area south of Highway 7.
I don't know how many jobs but why don't we ballpark it and call it an even 10,000, which pales compared ot the 2:1 ratio the munis wanted but, oh well.
That's 60,000 people in 47 hectares which is almost 1300 people + jobs per hectare which is more than 3x the Growth Plan target. South of 7, only.

That's pretty dense and definitely not average density for the region. I'd have to look again but I seem to recall a few years ago that North York Centre was somewhere around 450-500 people + jobs. So, again, we're talking more than double that. Outside of downtown and maybe Yonge/Eg, it's density seen basically nowhere else in this country, if my match checks out.

EDIT: Just to add my math is less precise on the Richmond Hill side of the Growth Centre but the density of the TOC there is over 2,000 people+jobs/hectare and it's probably also a bit over 50% of the larger Growth Centre. The density of remaining lands will certainly be lower but it would have to be a lot lower to even get below 1,500. So, probably 4-5X the Growth Plan target and, yeah, also very very dense (at full buildout, of course, which will take time).
 
Last edited:
I don't think this area will have anywhere near 10,000 jobs, but fair enough to the rest.
 
Undead said:
I don't think this area will have anywhere near 10,000 jobs, but fair enough to the rest.
Click to expand...
Could be at least half- there’s going to be “population-related employment” no doubt, which sorta just materializes. I don’t know how to calculate how much given a certain population, but 35,000 people is quite a lot. Although unlike north of the 407, there aren’t really any retail tenants here right now.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
If I can shift to metric, the Growth Plan minimum is 400 people + jobs per hectare.
Langstaff is 47 hectares.
20,000 housing units = roughly 35,000 residents.
And that's only about 60% of the full area from Bayview to Yonge. So probably we're talking about 50,000 residents, give or take, in the whole area south of Highway 7.
I don't know how many jobs but why don't we ballpark it and call it an even 10,000, which pales compared ot the 2:1 ratio the munis wanted but, oh well.
That's 60,000 people in 47 hectares which is almost 1300 people + jobs per hectare which is more than 3x the Growth Plan target. South of 7, only.

That's pretty dense and definitely not average density for the region. I'd have to look again but I seem to recall a few years ago that North York Centre was somewhere around 450-500 people + jobs. So, again, we're talking more than double that. Outside of downtown and maybe Yonge/Eg, it's density seen basically nowhere else in this country, if my match checks out.

EDIT: Just to add my math is less precise on the Richmond Hill side of the Growth Centre but the density of the TOC there is over 2,000 people+jobs/hectare and it's probably also a bit over 50% of the larger Growth Centre. The density of remaining lands will certainly be lower but it would have to be a lot lower to even get below 1,500. So, probably 4-5X the Growth Plan target and, yeah, also very very dense (at full buildout, of course, which will take time).
Click to expand...
MCC is being developed at quite high density, some of it planned at over 2000 people+jobs per hectare. It's very concerning when transit service is inadequate. At least this site has subway, GO and 407 GO bus and future transitway nearby.
 
9.1.2023

IMG_1647.jpeg


IMG_1648.jpeg


IMG_1649.jpeg


IMG_1650.jpeg


IMG_1651.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top